'Why Things Matter: Amainfesto for networked objects’

Initially when I was reading this article, I did not really understand what was the author talking about until towards the ending of the ending of the article is when I could actually understand what if the whole article about what the author was trying to say and what is “Blogject.”

The Blogjeck evolution which most likely is what would happen in the future; “once plugged into the internet, will become agents that circulate food for thought, that “speak on” matters from an altogether different point of view, that lend a Thingy-y perspective on macro and marco social, culture, political and personal matters.”

The above statement says it all what one should know, with the help of the internet, things are becoming more like human beings, able to do things and even communicate back (respond) to us. No doubt it would be a great achievement in the Internet industry as a form of expending their service and also being able to deliver to what we potentially look for in the future of our expectations.

However, is this really a good evolution to mankind? From my point of view, we will become less of what we really are; human beings.

Apart from that, if everything uses the internet in the future, there is a high possibility that the internet ecosystem will crash sooner or later due to the amount of people using internet and also from every different function of our everyday life.

‘Google’s Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web’

I personally found this case study an interesting read, the article starts off by explaining what Android and Google could and could not do. Eventually leading the readers to July 2005 when Google bought Android. Android concentrated on their software and Applications with the help of Google.

Upon buying Android, Google took this advantage to expend their software and build more cool programs to mobile internet that would be able to draw huge numbers of users. Google’s strategy was to ‘Just get something out there so we can put our services on top.’

With the amount of applications and programs Android has, it is no longer a mobile phone but a computer, perhaps a smaller and more mobile computer with the same functions. Android’s philosophy is ‘being a free, open source of mobile platform’. While reading this case study, I realized that Android stuck closely to their philosophy which is probably one of the reasons they became so successful.

The difference between Apple and Android

Apple

·         Closed device

·         Complete control over content and user

·         Walled garden of apps

Android

·         Open and free platform

·         Open garden of apps

·         No control over platform, content, user

·         300,000 activations per day

Personally, I feel that Google made a brilliant choice to buy Android and use it as a product to expend their service to existing Google users. So now even when users are not on their desktop/laptop they still can access Google through their mobile phones.

The main thing I learned in this subject, Global Network is that right now the Internet rules the world or varies reasons. With that said, with Google’s and Android’s masterpiece they have took up a totally different concept from Apple and is able to do so well.

Apple and Google are both well established companies with both having different brilliant ideas on how to rule the world with their product. However, from my point of view, I would say given a chance to choose. I would definitely choose Android as compared to Apple. Reason being I have more authority over my own phone being able to do what I want with it. Also I think that Apple I more of a “cool” phone for a more attention seeking users proud of carrying an Apple cause of its brand and “coolness.”

This article indirectly thought me that it is important to know your strength and use it as your advantage!

'Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go’

Facebook and twitter is regarded as a social network; people to communicate, connect and reconnect with people you don’t really know, share opinions. However, due to the recent crisis in the Middle East and North Africa Facebook and twitter became the major key/tool in organizing revolution parties.

Where the masses had no freedom of speech and were oppress by bad leadership. Has helped people to voice out their feelings and views even though most of them were never revolutionaries.

In previous years, technology has been used to organize revolution, for example the telegram used in 1917, Bolshevik revolution also the role of the tape-recorded in 1979 the Iranian revolution and fax machine is 1989 revolution, etc. Technology has always been key ever since it was created.

As opposed to back in the days when, people rise up against their kings and if they are defeated they then to hire assassins which was mostly used as a form of revolution. For example, Adam Hitler who had a lot of attempted assassinations in his life.

Because of how vast the internet is, tools like Twitter and Facebook were the major tools used to enlighten the world on the oppression that was going on in these countries and they were able to get more support from different people. That is to say, the internet can be an effective tool for political change. For example, in September 2010; Google was able to pick up the blogs and views from all this regions to the freedom of expression conference the company converted in Budapast, to make it accessible to everyone in the world, to listen to their crist and plead.

From reading this article and carefully observing the past and current form of revolution, I strongly agree with what the author says in the article. The internet can be used for a lot of media publicity and political issues; for example revolution, elections and so on. Without the internet everything would have been slow and halted. Preventing the world knowing what was actually going on.

The internet is a very fast and powerful tool whereby when an article is being blogged about; a split of seconds is being viewed by many which gave the revolunaries more strength and powers to take down their oppressors

‘No Secrets: Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency’

Due to internet meanwhile being explored, people are always anxious to get stories of latest happenings from people and that’s probably why people are stuck on the internet; to get updated.

A specific tall, young Australian man with white hair decided to open up a side called WikiLeaks, which gave the public more insight on stories that are secrets to most counties including US top secrets.

(Julian Assange also apperead in the cover mage of TIME magazines 100 most influencial people)

One of the most victims of this website is the story in Iraq which made wikiLeaks so popular. This story took place in 2007 where brutal killings of innocent civilient people were killed by American soldiers.

This video shows …………

The story became the topic of discussion, as the world got the real story behind the whole incident with video evidence and that became WikiLeak’s breakthrough. They were able to get the attention of the masses from all over and there they begin to expose more stories about countries who were involved in money lauders and gene-side.

-          The country that was mostly hurt was America

-          They hacked in the American embersy in different places and get vital secrets. Graph

-          The countries that were mostly discussed

Week 8: How twitter has changed the way we live.

The title of this article already describes what this article is about. The author first describes how it is a terrible first impression in his opinion due to the tools or features provided by twitter. Followed by the next point the author points out, which is “ambient awareness” which are users twitting about mundane things online to their extended followers which gives followers a sense of satisfaction feeling they are somewhat closer to that person as they know what that person does daily or feels daily.

The author then mentions that, the most fascinating is “not what Twitter does to us, but what we do to Twitter.” Although I strongly agree in certain context of what people do to the media instead of what the media does to people. However here, I disagree. In my personal opinion, Twitter is designed in a manner that limits you in a couple of sentences at most due to the fear of attention span. With these restrictions, there is not much as to what the users can do with Twitter, am I right?

An in this new culture of attention getting users, of cause this medium will be used as another way to gain more attention from blog’s, Friedster, Facebook and so on. However must say that, Facebook is slowly becoming like Twitter whereby users constantly update their status with limited sentences.

In my opinion, Twitter is a good invention next to Facebook, the reason I say this is because the creators of these sites have been able to understand their target audience so well to the point they predicted how we would react, what we would use it for and how. 

(The statistic shows the increase of users from 2007 to 2009 in Twitter)

From Facebook, we have come to notice that our culture today are becoming more of an attention seeker or perhaps suffering from narcissistic behavior. The creator of Twitter was obviously well aware of this and created something which would be another platform to “feed” to our satisfaction.

Creators. In free culture: How big media users Technology and the law to lock Down culture strangle creativity

This article mainly talks about creativity and copyright, being creative with something but at the sometime not stealing other people’s ideas/ concepts without giving credit to the creator/inventor (copyright).

Copyright acts restricting the stretch of imagination and creation as it limits people to what they can do with its laws. Is this a good or bad thing? Different people would have different opinions on this. For me, everything invented today somehow came from links of different ideas from different people put together to form the masterpiece. With that said, it is still essential to give credit to the original creators before one uses that same idea and expends it.

                     

The article touches on how Mickey Mouse expended using different ideas from different people and putting it together to build his own version of masterpiece. First, Disney took the idea of introducing synchronized sound by The Jazz Singer.

Next, Disney expended its creativity by bringing in animation; using synchronized cartoons with the inspiration of Bustler Keaton’s Steamboat Bill, Jr which is none other than synchronized comic! Here one would be able to clearly see the expend of Disney from cartoons to comic but somehow still using the same main idea which is Mickey Mouse using different media with different tools.

Similarly to the above example, today we have many different social media such as Friendster, Facebook and even Twitter using the same concept but made from different companies with slightly different features to distinguish them-selves. But if you look closely, the main idea is still the same; to connect and reconnect with people.

My take on this is, it is only natural for us to use different ideas from different people and put it together with our own idea to create something better. Just like Facebook versus Twitter. However, with all said and done, the right thing to do is obviously to give credit to the original creator.

The Long Tail

This article clearly shows or proves to me that, advertising and marketing determines what the public show demand as wants or needs. If not in all aspects, at least for movies, songs, books and so on. This is said because, the main concern in the end of the day, the industry is to gain profit which is MONEY not profit in terms of what society might actually really like apart from the mainstream. 

This article clearly explains that the mainstream is just a tactic done by marketers to like something which they predict or ASSUME that majority of people would love/like based on the industry wants us to like. There is a section in the article whereby it mentions that poor taste songs are strongly marketed and due to that loved by the public as compared to an actual good song is not marketed in the industry because the fear that the public might not like it.

     


  




Lady Gaga                                                                                                   Feist

(Example of Lady Gaga who sings mainstream songs compared to Feist who sings indie pop)

Apart from assumptions, the industry also focuses on hits rather than sales; so-called hits that are determined by the industry itself. This shows that products which may not be in the mainstream does not even have a chance to sell and become a hit! As only “hits deserve to exist,” similar to how only technology is the only source ignored by the market, which evaluates tracks on their own merit; variety apart from the mainstream.

I personally feel this is true, as during my parents time, songs actually had meaning; good lyrics and beats whereby the song actually made sense. However today, singers like Lady Gaga, Justin Beiber, and many more who can’t sing and don’t even know the basic things about music are the most successful and known singer around the WORLD. What does this tell you? Are the standards in the industry dropping? Or are they just greedy for profit?

With the availability of long tail, the technology definitely provides a vast variety to the public that book stores, music stores or the movie theater can’t. In the net, clearly demonstrates the demand and supply at any point of time.

 As technology has its benefits of providing everything to everyone at any point of time and probably even at a cheaper cost, but people will slowly lose the real meaning of appreciating or cherishing something mentioned in this article. What concerns me are, assuming today people or fans has lost the real meaning or feeling of having something they like in a physical and original form.

                  

(Metallica album versus downloading songs online)

What would happen in the near future due to technology and people in the industry only greedy for cash as profit? The disadvantages are slowly starting to show and it’s only a matter of time before it catches up and overtakes!

Convergence culture in the creative industries

This article by Mark Deuze is about the convergence of different culture coming together, particularly the culture of the media. The study of how the emerging practices in media which creates a new media

culture in the new global environment. Convergence culture is created by users who consume and produce, as Mr Faizal used the term during class and also the term used in this article, "Prosumer" refereeing to consumer who becomes producer. Meaning the audience receives and gives meaning to the media content.

"Acknowledging&observing the emergence of media culture --- convergence of culture (production+consumer) --- individual creativity& production in the cultural industries."

The author touches on the below elements:

a) Media Participants: peoples who participate with those who use the media
b) Convergence Culture: the new media ecology effects people, users have more control.
c) Creative Industries: creative industries open up ways of thinking about commercial and non-commercial.

The author futher studies how the online game counter-strike, online website Amazon and The CPB group are somehow in different ways connected to media participants, convergence culture and also creative industries.

As everything has pros and corns, so does convergence culture in my option. Convergence culture is:

beneficial as it does help us grow more creatively and use various media to suit what we want (consumer+producer). Hence, the "professionals" no longer entirely decide what we can and cant do as we are now part of the team of deciding what we want to suit our own preference. Since we live in a life whereby we are constantly told what to do at work and sometimes our personal life's, it is good to have some moments to ourselves where we are the "boss" and call the shots according to what we want. More like an escape time and with the convergence of media&culture, this is possible.

On another side of the note, due to convergence culture it is probably the reason for  institutions, companies and professionals are less in demand leading to less job demand (jeopardizing their coureurs). Apart from that, from my opinion where we ourselves become the author or boss of a software eventually as time passes we will get bored of it, as from time to time we need a person in higher authority to call the shots to make us feel human again and encounter challenges.

As the media is becoming "liquid" as mentioned in the article due to the convergence of culture&media. The question arises, what are the people/users doing to the media? The media somehow has become our puppet and we are the puppeter controlling it according to what we want.

But what happens when the puppet gets better then us in our real life? When we become the puppets shadow. Likewise applying it to the emerging media, what  happens when our life's in the media becomes better then our real life.

Free Culture

This article initially speaks about how process of how Disney becomes famous by "building" from others ideas.

Mickey Mouse ---- Synchronised sound (mix of sound with cartoons) --- Sound+Motion ----Comic!

I think it's a smart idea Disney used the different tools of technology for Mickey mouse, as it contributed a huge deal of success due to it. Similarly, so did building upon other people idea and creativity into creating his own masterpiece.

In my Opinion Creators are the people who first come up with the idea and implement it. If one were to use other people’s ideas or creativity, to me personally I feel it is fine, however one should give credit to the original source!

There are so many examples apart from Disney of building upon other people’s idea/creativity. For example, allot of our traditional believes or cultures has been a "coincidently" the same as some of others. It is fine to do so, however always give credit to the originator instead of "claiming" otherwise.

If people do not built upon other people’s ideas, then there would be less creativity in a product, when there is less creativity we would not have products and services today such as a smartphone; where there is allot of other features apart from the original phone feature. 

Liquid Life, Convergence Culture and Media Work

Above is a simple mind map I made based on the gist that the journal is trying to say from my understanding.

Liquid Life = constant change (Flux)

The five (5) issues the author looked at is new capitalism, media in everyday life, new media culture and society, liquid life and media work and convergence culture.

1) New capitalism

Work + family = fundamental shift

Mr Faizal and Ducker states that information and knowledge have become the primary form of capital. I personally agree with this statement. As we know, information and knowledge is power which enables one to be mobile and to be able to help the company climb the ladder or stay on top in terms of politics, societal issues and so on. 

As changes are constant: the only thing permanent is impermanent itself.

2) Media in everyday life

Online love, search engines, weblogs, online games including "meta-gaming, online shopping etc.

Contemporary changes in our economy, politics, society and also technology.

3) New media culture and society

COLLABORATION is the KEY. Collaboration of different media tools will attract the end-users (user-innovation communities)

"The media environment becomes the key site to the changing context of how we live, work and play." Basically what the author is trying to say here is how the media INFLUENCES us.

I agree with this statement the author mentioned in the journal " relevant to our concern is the inter-relationship between work-time, leisure-time & media- time" ( it is a much bigger place then it used to be but at the same time reducing our lifeworld. For example, interact with everyone yet "seeing" no one)

Due to the use of media, we interact less face to face or in person with people, rather we use the media to send out message or to communicate with others without actually being able to see that person "in person".

4) Liquid life and media work

The link between, the rapid-change and the media work.

Media revolution according to the journal means the "key to understanding our increasing opportunity, too see this kind of behaviour as a way for us to make sense of the growing complexity and uncertainty of the world around us."

Who is to blame for this liquid life we live in today? The journal mentions that the consumer culture blames the media as the main culprit. However, I disagree with that. In my person opinion why blame the media when we should blame the people behind the media and rather what we people do to the media tool.

5) Convergence Culture

According to tis journal, it states that the media should have a culture of its own, a LINE between consumption and production, making and using & active and passive spectators.

Like anything in life, too much of something is bed. Hence there must be a line draw to "over" doing something. Convergence culture is the balance between the media and the consumers.

COMMENTARY 

Those days, during my grandfathers generation and before. People used to work to make an ans meat, whereby work was work, it was not everything as it took less time as compared to today.

However, in today's world. Work is life, convergence (merge). Work itself has become your life. 

Modern tool that has facilitated this convergence is the MEDIA. The reason for why our world has changed are due to the two reasons below.

1) Globalisation

2) Competition

Personally I feel what WAS a means has now become an ant itself. More time, energy, effort is spent on work so that you can continue with your life.

With that said, is convergence good?

The power of media

From my reading, having reading all the four journals, personally I feel this is the hardest to really understand what the author is trying to say. 

While I understand work + life has merged. The tools of the media has helped people to interconnect, easy accessibility, mobile and work anywhere and any time.

Good or bad, the media has a very central role in this changing value system of our life!

Apart from that, I would like to state that the author was very kind to say it is a "convergence". As personally, had to agree with him, I would say it is more then a convergence rather it has taken over our life.

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

Just like have independence of a country, this article speaks about the independence of cyberspace.

Vested interest group = they have their own agenda which might conflict with the true meaning of  independence of cyberspace.

The cyberspace is borderless and belongs to every net citizen of the world. Indeed, separate world of it's own own and it's not govern by any country or authority.

Asserting a right which is similar to the right of Freedom Of Speech found in most constitutions of so called "developed" world.

Just as much as that freedom has been eroded over the years, the new found freedom of expression of  ideas and thoughts in cyberspace may also be restricted by governments. He gives examples, of this developed countries including the United States which have legislation that interferes with the independence of cyberspace.

The author's stand is that these restrictions are result of  vested interest, unfounded fear, ignorance, and outdated values. He is confident that while the human body may subject itself to various forms of restrictions and hardship, the human mind will always remain free especially in the world of cyberspace. This is the gist of Barlow's declaration.

A moral declaration of a purported goal, example of independence of expressions and thoughts. It is very interesting, appealing and challenging idea to all active cyber citizens. The article admits that there are various restrictions and hardships to really enjoy "full" independence.  

One has to agree as pointed out by Barlow that there are in many countries, developed or undeveloped, legislation's that are serious obstacles to this freedom. Malaysia included.

Since it is merely a declaration, Barlow does not claim or give us suggestions how to overcome the many forms of restrictions and therefore truly become independent netizens.

1) No central authority

In our world, we have a lot of different laws to keep us on tract. However, on the internet world, there is not as many laws as we have in our world and the internet laws are very much different from our laws.Due to this, we have more freedom on the internet to do almost or close to anything we want.

2) Different rules/ ways/ ethics

Search engine versus advertising, search engines such as Google, Yahoo, MSN and so on allows us to rearch for information which are valid and mostly accurate too. 

However, for advertising, it is more of a push information as advertising is merely used to advertise a certain product or service whereby the benefits, advantages or unique selling point of the product or service is written on the advertisement.

3) Internet culture

Internet culture to means the culture of the internet citizens. It is a different currently in the internet. There are so share information such as songs, files and so on. Apart from that, there are software application tools too.

4) Transaction & Relationships

With the collaboration between different tools in the media, it is easy for one to get connected to another even if they stay very far from each other.

It is a known fact that the internet can bring people closer or also break peoples relationships. Easy connectivity and excess enables people to get closer to each other. 

5) Virtual identity

Virtual identity could be CREATED AND CHANGED. The internet allows a person to be another person on the internet. As we know, many people are victims of online frauds due to the reason people are gullible and do not stop to think that these people who they don;t know on the internet can create and change their identity according to what they want.   

6) The emergence of new industries and new distributions of wealth

Nowadays, there are online shopping, online gaming, online search engines and so on. Apart from that, you can also apply for new jobs online with websites such as Asiaparttime. Whereby people have the opportunity to search for jobs and apply for jobs online.

Question:

Does the blame sorely rest on the government? Except for some dictatorships and communist governments, most of the "developed" countries have democratically elected peoples representatives who legislate and run governments. Does the buck stop with the citizens who elected the government?

Something to ponder on:

On the other hand, is absolute freedom on cyberspace totally good and will have no negative effects on the society?  Absolute freedom assuming all humans act responsibility. Do we? If so, why then do we need to stop and go on signs, why do we have traffic lights, etc?

Open Culture and the Nature of Network - Information Ecology

To understand this article, one would first need to understand what is "information ecology."?
Ecology is a scientific term used to describe the link or relation of one organisms to another and its physical surroundings. Applying this to Global Network would be the information, network carries from one link or website to another.

                                           (it is a constant flow between these three elements)                      

Integrated environment from the chart I did above refers to the ecology of government and the dynamics.

ORGANISMS = ENVIRONMENT + INFORMATION + NODES

The article talks about the integrated environment which is LINKED to information and institutions/structures which he calls NODES. He also mentions that, the environment he talks about is NOT MATERIAL but intangible flow of information produced and processed by media and the nodes come about where as a result of information of this flows of information.

The author uses the ecology model as in nature to show the nature of the network. 

The flow + nodes = build upon each other (growing) and also provide the stability to the environment. During class, Mr Faizal draw on the board the nodes flow which looks like the below image. 

 AND

I would like to compare the above image of nodes, with a spider web. As the image above and a spider web; one builds upon the other and also the fact that one small change can change the whole structure. 

from the article, I also understand that the nodes and flow of information themselves depend on the dynamic nature of the environment which is NOT STATIC (always in a state of flux - not static). However there is a certain pattern to this constant change, The dynamic nature of this society has four recurring characteristics which are interdependency, change, time-boundness and differentiation.

Interdependency

Interdependent meaning that it can't exist by itself. The network society is continues evolving just like any other society, it also has a "life" of its own. New things come, old things go. It has to be able to depend on each other just like human beings, "no man is an island by himself."

Change

Just like human beings continuesly change due to their surroundings or situations, similarly the nodes also change by being connected from one to another. The only constant thing is change itself! The article mentions that " the mode of survival is adaptation instead of optimization." Meaning to survive we have to learn to adapt to our surroundings, and in order to adapt we need to first change. The same thing happens in the ecological environment.

Time-boundness

Today, mobility is essential to us the human beings as we live in a very fast paced life. With that said the ecological environment, it is essential that the information flows very quickly to supply to our demand.

Differentiation 

The article states that " information is difference and the nodes survive as long as they can make a difference."

Meaning, the more information the nodes produce, the nodes will survive as they are different.

COMMENTARY

While the author says they are stable by themselves, but does not look at consumers of all this information flow. As we know, the gatekeepers can choose and be selective in the type of information they want to flow. There is concerns or worries that these gatekeepers are manipulative. The type, nature and content of the information to the end users. Am I right?


The movie "Hackers (1995)" which Angelina Jolie acted in her younger days, is an example that not only the government can control the information flow in the internet but rather people themselves who has strong knowledge on hacking. These hackers can access P&C information on the network due to their knowledge of hacking. With that said, again I rise the question. Does the information flow on the internet really has its freedom?

This article from Felix Stalder talks about how ultimately society uses it and benefits from it, will depend on the users themselves. Just like any other tool, can be abused. Over dependency may also have long term negative effects where people stop to think for themselves.

Global Network DIGC202

I must admit that this journal "Power does not reside in institutions, not even the state or large corporations. It is located in the network that structure society.." It is mentally challenging as there is no black and white answer to what Manuel Castells writes about as it is constantly contradicting, as what seems logical may not be logical.

First, what is network? Network is a fluid which constantly changes based on common goals or common beliefs from the society. I say this because, if there is no common goal or beliefs then there will be no network as there would be nothing to communicate about. Am I right?

Manuel mentions that we live in a network society, not in an informational society or a knowledge society. I disagree with that statement, as information and knowledge is what creates the network society in my personal opinion.

Current technology is what enables networking, technology tools are what enables communication which is so rapid and constantly changing around the societies become interconnected around the world, while it is by itself - this is what the author is trying to say.

First, network societies expends on a global scale. Powerful people who are sharing the same view (society), they can influence the society.

Second, networked organisations out complete all other forms of organisation. Here the author speaks about organizations can be influenced. For example, the 2008 Elections. The government was behind time and slow during the elections due to our current technology savy people and the network. Therefore this worked towards their disadvantage.

Third, the autor goes on speaking about management crisis. The fourth, where he speaks about civil society is reconstructed at the local and global level through networks of activists...... Here he speaks about NGO. For example would be, Bersih. People around Malaysia shared their opinion through Facebook, SMS and so on.

Fifth, sociability is transformed in the new historical context..... here he talks about individualism and the need for sharing, to understand and influence our view/ideas etc.

Sixth, the author talks about how POWER shapes everything (network society) But where does the power come from? large corporations? like we know from the US as some large corporations control the government due to economy reasons. Or is the power located within us, with our common goals and beliefs?

Finally, yes the author mentions that power changes society, but from where to what? I guess no one can answer this. As communication itself is a two way flow, so it networking as it influences and shapes our society.

In general, the topic "network logic" it self explains that there is no real black and white to the answer and this journal definitely gives room to us to have our own opinion and views about the journal. But what the author keeps saying is that network is shared by common goal or beliefs from people and that network is dominant.

Network rely on technology tools, as without technology network would not exist in my understanding. Hence why there was no network during my parents generation. I think I have wrote alot, enjoy reading and do criticize and give me your opinions :)