I find this week's theories a little confusing and abstract. For people who has not studied media ecologies or this course, they might not have heard of the terms 'Transversality' and 'Framing' used together as, neither did I before this week.
As technology advances, our technological footprint consequently enlarges. There are more assemblages and divergence between multiple media platforms, which in turn create new ways of doing things, and essentially, change our mentality, behaviour and perceptions towards old and new technologies. According to Murphie (2006), such change in attitudes and actions is known as 'transversality', in which the divergence or convergence of platforms result in dismantling or the gathering of elements. In other words, transversality is to grasp as much from infinity as we can.
On the other hand, 'framing' refers to the basic foundation and influences from the world in which our perceptions, beliefs and attitudes are formed and gathered (Cola and Prario 2012, p. 188). From our daily media consumption, our minds are 'framed' to behave, react and perceive a certain way, either leaning towards or extremely against the stance as portrayed in the media. As a result, our social behaviour, memory and protention is simultaneously influencing and influenced by the process of 'framing'. In short, framing is to reject infinity as much as we can in favour of what are known (Murphie 2006).
Being my skeptical (sometimes even cynical) self, I can't help but wonder: So what's so special about the formation of our behaviours and perceptions, as well as their subsequent alterations?
Scholars like to use these theories to explain the transformations happening in the media sphere. One example is the change in the music industry, where traditional CDs are no longer popular as free (often pirated) music is made available with the advancement of peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing, well connected networks and piracy. Does that mean the music industry is dying or more alive than ever? Neither. With the robust sharing capability and people's desire for easily accessible and up-to-date music, the industry needs to adapt to the needs of the customers and find new, legitimate ways that satisfy all parties with a vested interest, in order to sell music online. Yet the industry is not more alive than ever because it has failed to transform their operational modes to the current trends. Suing Kim Dotcom's MegaUpload for 'illegal user content' and raiding various music sharing sites is not a solution. The roots of the problem are their ancient business model and most importantly, the outdated version of the copyright law. There are numerous opportunities in the new era, it all depends on the company itself and its capability to change. Think Spotify and Rdio, online services which allow unlimited streaming of legal music with a fixed premium every month. A new service called Megabox was also introduced by Kim Dotcom to compete with music streaming rivals, and it boasted to allow artists to keep 90 per cent of the profits earned from their music (2012). As we can see, through the process of transversallity, pre-established frameworks (revenues through traditional distribution channels such as selling CDs) have been challenged, changed and diminished by a new technology and hence, users' behaviours.
Another example is the assemblage and convergence between printed books and the online platform, which created hybrid books, e-books and e-magazines. Through such transversality process, the pre-established platform of printed books has been somewhat diminished, there are more and more publications have axed their printed books production and moved their production to digital platforms. Think Newsweek magazines, which has been printing for 79 years (Saba and Lauria 2012), and the complete shutdown of the Australian Grazia magazine, as well as the recent announcement to cut the Australian Madison magazine (mUmBREALLA 2013). It is clear that these changes are done in response to the rising popularity of iPads and tablets, combined with the effects of a bad economy, which consequently result in a sharp decrease in readers of print-based media and decline in their revenues. The media has the power to 'frame' their readers into perceiving and believing what is true and what's not. In saying so, they should be held partially responsible for the Domino effects of printed publications. To me, how transversality works in the real world is not as ideal as depicted in the theory. It is especially saddening when the media has failed to figure out a sustainable model to keep both its traditional ways and to cater for those new tablets demands. Because ultimately, the experience and satisfaction from reading printed books will never be the same as e-books. I wonder if our future generations will be able to witness or experience printed books at all?
Transversality and framing take place on a daily basis. But the way institutions and individuals tackle the associated problems, is the key issue. At the end of the day, it all comes down to one question: How much are we willing to sacrifice for the advancement of technology?
Word: Data (given in lecture 6)
Reference:
Cola, M. and Prario, B. 2012, 'New ways of consumption: the audiences of public service media in Italy and Switzerland', Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 34 (2), March, p. 181-194, accessed 24 April 2013, from SAGE Journals.
Murphie, A. 2006, ‘Editorial’, The Fibreculture Journal, Issue. 9, accessed 26 April 2013, < http://nine.fibreculturejournal.org/ >
(No name) 2012 'Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom announces music streaming service', News.com.au, June 25, accessed 24 April 2013, <http://www.news.com.au/technology/kim-dotcom-says-megabox-is-still-coming/story-e6frfro0-1226407676843#ixzz2RXLXnrr5http://www.news.com.au/technology/kim-dotcom-says-megabox-is-still-coming/story-e6frfro0-1226407676843#ixzz2RXLKLPgP>.
Saba, J. and Lauria, P. 2012, 'After 79 years in print, Newsweek goes digital only', 18 October, accessed 24 April 2013, <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-newsweek-digital-idUSBRE89H0L020121018>.
mUmBREALLA 2013, 'Bauer to close Madison magazine', mUmBREALLA, 3 April, accessed 26 April 2013, <http://mumbrella.com.au/bauer-to-close-madison-magazine-148778>.
This week I find myself mourning the death of privacy, triggered by the idea of data, and its relation with media, humans, the social and all forms of institution.
Data exists in a plethora of forms surrounding our lives. It is anything that affects one or is perceived by one. One way of approaching data is to gather, process and analyse data from experiences, thoughts, memory, sensation or perception. This is known as ‘processual data’ (Murphie 2013). ‘Technical’ or ‘scientific’ data, on the other hand, is gathered and distributed by technologies ranging from printing presses to computers to complex scientific networks (Murphie 2013). In this post, we will focus on the technical data available and affecting our everyday life.
Here, we are presented with Latour’s (2005, p. 23-24) Actor Network Theory (ANT). This idea seemed pointless to me at first, but it was later proved to be simple and useful in analysing the intertwined relations between data, media and users. The theory is illustrated in my diagram drawn below.
In the diagram, an example is drawn from the networks of social events on social media (Facebook in particular). All the human and non-human actants/elements involved are treated as neutral, which subsequently forms a ‘flat ontology’. In the assemblage of social events, an actant is not just an object, but an association of heterogeneous elements which constitute a network. The image presents the various human and non-human actants involved in creating a social event on Facebook, and considers the relations between the two as well as some overlapping elements. The graph continues to explore the chain effect of a hypothetical change in a human element - the increased control such as censorship by local government, like the Chinese government. The graph illustrates how this actant’s change leads to the changes in all the other actants, and ultimately, the changes in the relations involved in the assemblage. Though the ANT model is useful in understanding the complex relations and elements within a social network, it can be seen as over-simplifying and undermining the important of human actants, which are treated as minimal objects just to accompany the data and technological elements (Dudhwala 2012).
With the democratisation of data, the sharing, distribution and access to data archive has become unprecedentedly easy. Despite the numerous advantages, it is important to acknowledge the immense threats behind this - users giving away their valuable data to the companies. Take Google as an example. As a search engine giant, major email provider, smartphone developer and location service provider, Google has a large stake in controlling our data. The data range from our personal details from our search history, to our alarms set on Google phones, to our locations and routes taken to work everyday, to our daily experiences captured by Google Glass, and even important information such as passwords, intimate conversations, which can be retrieved, predicted and tracked by Google’s services. By using Google’s free services, we are compromising our privacy and crucial information. Google's potential power of the world's information cannot be ignored. Yet there are no existing laws to protect users from these large commercial corporations, and most importantly, the government. It is so easy to give away our data even without us noticing.
Indeed, data is a powerful tool and an indispensable element in our lives. Some may utilise the global data networks with integrity, like Paul Edwards; while some may exploit and manipulate the access the important data. As Rogers (2011) says, ‘Anyone can take on a fearsome set of data now and wrangle it into shape’, particularly the data brokers and the government.
It is an interesting yet depressing observation of the seemingly ‘improvement’ of our lives brought by accessible and available data. Quilty-Harper (2010) suggests that data has positively transformed our relationships and advertising strategies. One of these improvements is the combining and analysis of users’ specifics to provide users with more convenience and efficiency. Think Facebook selling users’ personal details (age, interests, gender, siblings, country, relationship status) to advertisers and data brokers for commercial purposes. These data brokers trade specific information about people, such as their names, addresses, shopping habits, and personal data, without providing the sources of how they got it (Opsahl and Reitman 2013). Essentially, these data brokers work closely with the government, which poses an even greater threat to our privacy. Opsahl and Reitman (2013) show that government agents have access to extensive database and multiple social media sites on the grounds of ‘terrorist threats’, criminal investigations and citizenship requests.
It is not news anymore that content / service providers are doing this to their users. But should they be entitled to? Personally, I am appalled by the highly unethical practices of data brokers, and the conspiracy behind. The benefits of free-sharing and accessible data are undeniable, but how much control are we willing to give away? How many of the users have even considered the threats that these services pose? Even if we have noticed, how much influence we have to make it less intruding or make it stop?
Word: Augmented (given in lecture 5)
References:
Dudhwala, F. 2012, What is Actor-Network Theory?, Academia, accessed 14 April 2013, <http://www.academia.edu/542543/What_is_Actor-Network_Theory>.
Edwards, P. N. 2010, ‘Introduction’ (eds.), in Murphie, A. 2013, ARTS3091 Study Kit, University of New South Wales, p. 138-145.
Harris, D. 2013, ‘We Need a Data Democracy, Not a Data Dictatorship’, Gigaom, 7April, accessed 18 April 2013, <https://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fgigaom.com%2F2013%2F04%2F07%2Fwe-need-a-data-democracy-not-a-benevolent-data-dictatorship%2F%3Futm_medium%3Dreferral%26utm_source%3Dpulsenews?tab=people&uname=andersand>>.
Latour, B. 2005, Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory, e-book, accessed 18 April 2013, <http://dss-edit.com/plu/Latour_Reassembling.pdf>.
Murphie, A. 2013, Lecture Week 5—(The Senses), Mixed Realities, lecture notes, accessed 18 April 2013, <http://www.andrewmurphie.org/3091/lecture-notes/#lectures-week-5-6>.
Opsahl, K. & Reitman, R. 2013, ‘The Disconcerting Details: How Facebook Teams Up With Data Brokers to Show You Targeted Ads’, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 22 April, accessed 18 April 2013, <https://www.diigo.com/bookmark/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F04%2Fdisconcerting-details-how-facebook-teams-data-brokers-show-you-targeted-ads?tab=people&uname=andersand>.
Rogers, S. 2011, ‘Data journalism at the Guardian: what is it and how do we do it?’, The
Guardian, 28 July, accessed 18 April 2013, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/28/data-journalism>>.
Quilts-Harper, C. 2010, ’10 ways data is changing how we live’, The Telegraph, 25 August, accessed 18 April 2013, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7963311/10-ways-data-is-changing-how-we-live.html>.
There has always been some fascination about virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) in human history. As represented in numerous sic-fi Hollywood films, we often encounter VR and AR in the forms of virtually navigated drones (think Matrix), systems which display holographic information, and systems which bring the virtual into reality, think the real wicked animals created from a computer in The Hunger Games.
While most of the readings explored the philosophical implications and commercial products of VR and AR technologies, I am most interested in thinking about them in the context of commercial possibilities and threats. But first—how do these differ?
Virtual reality refers to the simulated environment similar to or replacing the real world, in an attempt to create a lifelike experience, or to provide a virtual escape which can be significantly different from the reality, such as in VR games (Drell 2012). Virtual reality aims to remove the individual from the real world completely, and place the user into a virtual world where completely different sensations and possibilities are open to be experienced. It transplants us into separate, isolated realities that replace our sense of belonging within one sensory environment with that of another.
Augmented reality, on the other hand, is a live, direct or indirect view of a physical, real world environment whose elements are augmented by computer-generated sensory input, such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data (Wikipedia 2012). This modified, mediated (possibly even diminished rather than augmented) reality functions by enhancing one’s perception of reality and inserting technology into the real world to maximise or improve on the sensations. Augmented reality enhances our experience and perception of reality when engaging with live (but heavily mediated) views of the real-world.
Traditional AR is flat, yet attaches information intensively and effectively (Hidden Limited 2010). When it comes to recent breakthrough in the AR technology, one would immediately think of Google Glasses - a product facilitating augmented reality through enriching, sensationalising our vision and incorporating it into a computer screen. Visualising your Facebook chat in front of you instead of looking at it from our desktop or smartphone screen, sure sounds cool. If not, why would Tony Stark wear them to remote-control other automated Iron Mans in Iron Man 3, right? According to Hidden Limited (2010), AR has extensive commercial functions - it can be used as a tool to sell real estate, where customers can virtually foresee how the desk/furnitures can be set up, while displaying the costs related to each change. It breaks the barrier of the conventional laptop and smartphone, as AR technologies provide instant information whenever and wherever. In essence, AR allows us to embrace the new virtual world and a whole new space where our mind is the only boundary. According to Drell (2012), augmented reality can radically improve our lives by facilitating explorations; improving e-commerce and services associated with a product across boundaries of time and space.
For example, Lego used to enhance customers’ vision of what their boxed products looked after they were built. Another exciting movement is that the Sesame Street production brought still objects/dolls into lively characters, as seen in the video below. (It is really cool, please watch it!) It is believed that augmented reality helps consumers to envision what is possible and promised in a product.
Sesame Street Augmented Reality Dolls Take AR to the Next Level
Despite the overwhelming commercial potential of augmented reality, Havens (2013) criticised the intrusion of privacy, the blurring of the moral and social boundaries, as well as the ethical issues surrounding augmented realities. Indeed, these concerns are reasonable. Think about the latest autonomous drones developed by the American navy (Hennigan 2012). Flying plane/weapon without a pilot is no longer a dream or representation in Hollywood films like Oblivion, it has become a fact. Instead of controlling these technologies, the AR products in turn possess control over us, in forms of weapons, media consumption, beliefs and perceptions.
What about virtual reality? Most of the current virtual reality environments are primarily displayed on either a computer screen or through special stereoscopic displays, but some simulations include additional sensory information (Wikipedia 2011). They allow the creation of virtual worlds and enable users to participate differently in the virtuality of the world. An excellent and engaging example would be the virtual barber shop shown in the video below. Just plug in your headphones and close your eyes for four minutes, you will be amazed to experience a virtual haircut. (You have to do it to really experience it!)
Virtual Barber Shop Hair Cut - 3D Sound
So how did it feel? Did you feel virtually suffocated when he first put the plastic bag over your head? Did you feel a tingling sensation on your back when the barber cut the hair from your back? Did it feel real when he whispered in your ears? My answers to these, are all 'yes'. Such response from a virtual experience is known as the 'autonomous sensory meridian response', in which we experience a tickling sensation in our bodies in reaction to various visual, auditory and cognitive stimuli (Wikipedia 2011).
What does this experiment tell us? It proves that our sensations can be formed or even tricked by virtual elements. This explains how players can get so engaged and identified with virtual games and even create their second life, such as the game World of Warcraft. Indeed, virtuality is not just the mediation of transfer of message, it is also about shifting the whole field of human-social-ecological potentials into our future, and changing the potential relations that are embedded in that future (Murphie 2011). Due to this shifting of VR into the reality, many issues have arisen, including the mixing identities and statuses derived from video games. In some extreme cases, gamers that are overly attached to the virtual realities of World of Warcraft and have committed suicide after finding out their weapons have been stolen or hacked (Cheung 2005).
Critics have argued VR products are enriching individuals' experiences as they are exposed to situations that are impossible in their real worlds. However, VR products can get problematic. Imagine how dangerous would it be when virtual reality becomes aware of itself and gets attached to its users?
Examples include the first virtual sex device for men, which complement and synchronise with video aids (Gizmag Team 2010); and the recent emergence of virtual sex simulation game with series of 'fully-immersive erotic encounters', developed by Sinful Robot (Fox News 2012). With the intensified sensation, pleasure and glorified status gained from these virtualities, users are tricked to believe that they exist in and belong to such reality.
According to Murphie (2011), there are two sides of real: virtual and actual. And most often than not, the virtual is too real. When media speed up and alter the mediated realities, there is a reality change - a change on an either global scale or hyperlocal scale. And before you know it, you'd already be addicted to and blindfolded by these realities. Undoubtedly, virtual and augmented realities benefit our lives and indicate the future of human development - AR technology facilitates our lives and add layers and perspective into our realities; while VR technology provides us with a platform to experience entirely new sensations and encounters to enrich our lives. However, it is just as important to acknowledge the potential risks associated with exploitation and over reliance on these technologies.
Should one 'embrace the new virtual universe' and experience 'a whole new space where our mind is the only boundary' (The Future of Augmented Reality 2010)? It's your choice.
Blog word: Experience (given in lecture 4)
References:
'Augmented City 3D', 2010, Youtube, online video, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TL80ScTLlM&feature=html5_3d>.
'Augmented Reality', Wikipedia, wiki article, January 2011, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality>.
'Autonomous sensory meridian response', Wikipedia, wiki article, January 2011, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response>.
Cheung, H. 2005, 'Parents blame death of son on World of Warcraft', TG Daily, 22 November, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/21757-parents-blame-death-of-son-on-world-of-warcraft>.
Drell, L. 2012, ‘7 Ways Augmented Reality Will Improve Your Life’, Mashable, December 20, accessed 13 April 2013, < http://mashable.com/2012/12/19/augmented-reality-city/ >.
Fox News 2012, 'Sinful Robot developing fully-immersive virtual reality sex game', Fox News, 17 December, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/17/company-developing-fully-immersive-virtual-reality-sex-game/#ixzz2ReEoG34I>.
The Future of Augmented Reality 2010, Youtube, online video, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnRJaHZH9lo>.
Gizmag Team 2010, 'RealTouch - World’s first virtual sex device for men (NSFW)', Gizmag, 10 February, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.gizmag.com/realtouch-virtual-sex-device-for-men/14126/>.
Havens, J. 2013, 'The Impending Social Consequences of Augmented Reality', Mashable, 9 February, accessed 14 April 2013,<http://mashable.com/2013/02/08/augmented-reality-future/>>.
Hennigan, W. J. 2012, ‘New drone has no pilot anywhere, so who’s accountable?’, Los Angeles Times, January 26, accessed 13 April 2013,< http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-auto-drone-20120126,0,740306.story >.
Hidden Limited 2010, Hidden Limited, Manchester, United Kingdom, accessed 14 April 2013, <http://hiddenltd.com/our-solutions/>.
Jurgenson, D. 2009, ‘Towards Theorizing An Augmented Reality’, The Society Pages, 5 October, accessed 23 April 2013, <http://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/2009/10/05/towards-theorizing-an-augmented-reality/>.
Murphie, A. 2011, 'Virtuality', Australia, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.andrewmurphie.org/3091/course-outline-and-readings/#virtuality>.
Sesame Street Augmented Reality Dolls Take AR to the Next Level 2012, Youtube, online video, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2jSzmvm_WA>.
'Virtual Reality', Wikipedia, wiki article, January 2011, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality>.
Virtual Barber Shop Hair Cut - 3D Sound 2008, Youtube, online video, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXm6SuUigI>.
