Week 10

New media is not only capable of changing the world, but it is already doing it; in a sense, new media have and are always changing the world as new innovations continually bring new possibilities and opportunities to those who wish to utilize them. New media not only change and influence the way in which we behave towards others in society, but also change the ways in which we view the world itself, as well as the ways in which we interact with it – this can particularly be related to science, as was the focus of the weekly readings.

The capabilities of new media to transform science and the way in which it is conducted are far-reaching and extend throughout the field; new media and technologies shape the way that experiments are run, visualised and modeled, providing new methods and techniques that work towards attaining an understanding of the inner workings of the human body, the environment, different plants and animals and even the workings of the universe at large. An extreme yet incredibly amazing and interesting example of this can be found in the article ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, which reports on the fact that “scientists have created the world’s first synthetic life form” (Sample, 2010). Ignoring the ethical consequences of such an act, as well as the pros and cons that this innovation could offer, this is a landmark achievement in the field of science (and arguably in human history) and would not have been possible without the new technologies and media that enable this type of experiment. It should also be recognised that – as is pointed out in the article - this new innovation in biology may allow further innovations in science where “new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines”. This facet of scientific discovery reflects another principle inherent in the relationship between new media and science – new innovations are continuously built upon preexisting innovations, sometimes utilising new media to do this yet sometimes also creating new media in the process.


Another aspect of science that is changed by new media are the opportunities for and the challenges of communicating, distributing and sharing ones findings. Through new communication methods such as the digitization of scientific publications, blogging and podcasts, science has become more accessible and transparent, not only within the field itself but for the public as well. Pisani (2011) acknowledges that new innovations in scientific data sharing allowed by new media “will mean more and faster progress… and better quality data” and Wilbanks (2011) also notes that “the internet is poised to transform science publishing and science itself”. These new innovations place an emphasis on sharing and can thus be related to the concepts of micropolitics and collaboration we discussed last week, as scientists would be able to freely and efficiently access and add to scientific data from all over the world, providing a comprehensive database of information that may assist in further discovery. As is noted by Wilbanks, the change towards access enabled by new media have “taken us into a world where the publication of research serves as a distributed commons of knowledge, as the beginning of millions of research cycles, not one where a short set of “pages” represents the end of a research investment”.


These are only a couple of examples of the ways in which new media are capable of changing science, technology and innovation. However, it should also be noted that new media also change us – as new media allow discoveries and innovations in the field of science, we as humans continue to learn more about ourselves and the world around us, impacting on the ways in which we interact with each other and live our lives. I would like to end this entry with a quote from Kelly (2010) that really stuck with me this week and that I believe sums up the relationship between this weeks concepts quite well:

“At the core of science’s self-modification is technology. New tools enable new ways of discovery, different ways of structuring information. We call that organization knowledge. With technological innovations the structure of our knowledge evolves. The achievement of science is to discover new things; the evolution of science is to organize the discoveries in new ways. Even the organization of our tools themselves is a type of knowledge. Right now, with the advance of communication technology and computers, we have entered a new way of knowing” (Kelly, 2010). 

 Bibliography:
Pisani, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’, The Guardian, January 11, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing>
Wilbanks, John (2011) ‘On Science Publishing’, Seed, <http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing>
Kelly, Kevin (2010) ‘Evolving the Scientific Method: Technology is changing the way we conduct science’, The Scientist <http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57831/>
Sample, Ian (2010) ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, The GuardianMay 2, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form>.

Micro politics and Assumed Values

This week’s theme was the shifting micro-political structures enabled by the Internet and the way these are changing our social assemblages. I found Rhinegold’s TED talk (2008) particularly useful in laying the historical foundations of for our current predicament – just as the printing press enabled mass literacy and thus new collective arrangements, the Internet and mobile devices are created a mass computer literacy that greatly expands our network for communication and action. From here, most of the readings seemed to agreed that these collective arrangements form a basis for our social understanding and the values that are intrinsic to our daily life.

However, I found the assumed commonality between cultures to be somewhat problematic in its discussion. Bauwens (2014) in particular advocated societies need to move away from our capitalist collective arrangement and toward ‘communal values’ that emphasis intellectual peer-to-peer freedom. While the sentiment is clear (that is to say he is arguing against the increasing authority institutions are exerting over our micro-political interactions i.e Facebook) I think the notion of the communal is still largely an anglo-centric ideology that seeks to impart our agreed values on a global scale. This is something that the Internet has been an incredible tool in facilitating and to some extent his comments are symptomatic of that.

In having a global network of literacy and constant accessibility, the agreed values of the Western world tend to become the dominant frameworks for collective action. While we are now able to connect with groups that have similar ideologies and form new ‘alliances’ that have shared values, resoundingly it is still the capitalist democracies voice who is the loudest and who has the greatest influence over our communal interactions. This is becoming increasingly apparent in Facebook’s privacy policies and integration to multiple media platform. What was originally anticipated as a peer-to-peer network for the exchange of information and intellectual ideas has now become a mass marketing network that has a greater agency over its users image then they do. As technology continues to become more powerful and more mobile, this trend may be exacerbated to the point of intellectual repression or completely eradicated by different micro-political frameworks – the volatile nature of the Internet makes it difficult to predict. We can however, comment on the current trend toward a capitalist Internet culture that has shifted from its peer-to-peer roots to become a radically different technology all together.

Bauwens, Michel (2014) ’Openness, a necessary revolution into a smarter world’, P2P Foundation, February 4, <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/what-is-p2p-an-introduction/2014/02/04> DATE ACCESSED: 5/5/14

Government

This week was concerned with the development of government alongside our information technologies. Particularly, how our reliance on software and its integration into everyday life has the potential to be manipulated by those in power.

Morozov (2013) envisaged Google glass as being a key component in this development. He suggests that as it becomes more popular and the software surrounding it becomes more advanced, governing bodies will be able to monitor our physical behaviour and impose penalties on infringements from afar. Certainly there has been much discussion about the concept of the ‘nanny state’ in Australia. Proposals to monitor and block access to certain Internet sites has sparked debate over the extent to which our government has the right to do so. Traditional litigation and government legislation has not yet caught up with the modern definitions of privacy and the extent to which information submitted online still constitutes our personal sphere.

Solove (2013) offers a further insight into how this invasion is going to be executed. While officially only the NSA in America has admitted to monitoring metadata from its citizens, it’s probably reasonable to assume many governments follow this model and so Solove’s commentary remains relevant. Singular parcels of metadata in themselves offer a limited insight into our personal interactions. However, when these are stitched together across our media use and across media platforms a more holistic image is given of how we use media and who we interact with. This is where Solove identified an invasion of privacy. We are not protected against this kind of abstractional invasion of our computer use nor is the current government framework legislated against it.

The question then emerges: will we evolve a new framework of governance, which not only acknowledges but also actually relies upon the digital? Many a sci-fi movie has predicted it with catastrophic invasions of privacy and oppression but as the reality emerges the shift may be more gradual. Already many traditionally ‘western’ countries associated with democracy are capitalising on this new territory before legislation can impede them. The monitoring of computer use in particular offers a platform for control and Intel into the public that has not before been seen. It is an immediate and responsive gauge for social unrest and the proliferation of ‘anti-government’ ideologies that can be accessed on a broad scale by governing bodies.

Looking slightly away from this, perhaps the new form of governing will actually emerge from the companies that control information technologies. We can already see that Facebook and Google have a tremendous store of ‘marketing’ information that forms a comprehensive expression of social media use. Their exploitation of this to capitalise on personal information may become the currency of the future and an expression of power in the new digital framework.

Morozov, E. (2013) ‘The Real Privacy Problem’ Available online:http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520426/the-real-privacy-problem/ 

Solove, D. (2013) ‘Why Metadata Matters: The NSA and the Future of Privacy’ Available online: http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131125092647-2259773-why-metadata-matters-the-nsa-and-the-future-of-privacy 

Vectors and Framing

This week examined framing and vectors, both in how they are presented to us and how we alter them. Mackenzie’s reading offered a particularly interesting perspective on this, I thought. Here, he examined vectors as the mediums through which information is disseminated geographically or temporally, and the way in which these can enhance power.

What I had not before considered was how these vectors operate in terms of our changing social paradigm. The idea that information mediums are creating a radically commoditized reality where the participants are objectified but also perpetuate the commodification is becoming increasingly apparent - if not evident enough in the tremendous technological surge then simply in the wealth of the vectorial class (think Steve jobs and Rupert Murdoch). 

As we surpass the physical geography of our social scape, we become engrossed instead in a virtual reality, where the flow of information is so continuous and instantaneous that it has surpassed our ability to consume and control it. The 'app' as a vector has been particularly effective in commodifying our ‘second nature’ - we have apps that connect us with friends, with employers, with religion and with our desires. The interface channels the information and in its data and coding, computes and objectifies our totality; both physically and mentally. 

The marketability of this process is where framing comes into play. Our reality is now framed through these information vectors to such an extent that we are now the reinforcing factor behind our total objectification. Our technology frames the way we engage with each other, which in turn supplies data and marketing information to companies which is then framed back to us. It is a cyclical process, framed again as a linear progression. Ultimately, the interplay between these two concepts are becoming increasingly powerful in the technological era. As we move toward greater technological capacity, their role will become more prominent but also more embedded – until, I imagine, it will be hard to discern our marketability from our reality.

Week 6 - Code, Data and Media - a Complicated Relationship

Data collection and mining has become so ingrained into our society that we don’t even notice its presence, but would most likely notice its absence. Data is collected from our everyday lives and habits; it is then collated and given to various companies and organisations in order to hone the information we receive or to alter the way in which we interact (Harper, 2010). For instance, Google logs our searches and interests in order to both create the ‘suggested search’ predictive feature which makes searching simpler and to place more appealing and personalised advertisements on the internet pages we view. This has expanded to our entire use of the internet, if you search for a band on Google, the next time you go onto YouTube, their music videos or anything related to that band will be suggested to you (Huffington Post, 2012).Any user can check how many companies are using collected data from their internet history, through the use of the visualisation add-on Collusion. However, whilst people have the ability to see how many companies are collecting their information, there is still no way to stop these companies from doing so (Madrigal, 2012). This leads to the question: is data collection a bad thing or a good thing? Data collection clearly has negative connotations attributed to it (Madrigal, 2012), yet there can be points made about the value it adds to the study of our society. For instance, data collection can help us understand various aspects of the world and life around us. It allows us to study things such as the popularity of flight paths. 
Data collection can be used to allow us to better understand the intricacies of society. Through works such as these, we can study our interactions with one another and with the world, and can therefore explore why we behave the way we do and the way in which people think.
References:Harper, C 2010, ’10 Ways Data is Changing How We Live’, The Telegraph, 25 August, accessed April 7 2014

‘Google Merging User Data To Improve Experience, Help Advertisers’ Huffington Post, January 24, accessed April 7 2014

Madrigal, A 2012, ‘I’m Being Followed: How Google- and 104 Other Companies- Are Tracking Me On The Web’, The Atlantic, February 29, accessed April 7 2014

Week 5: Interaction

This week within the readings the main focus and idea was the relationship between humans and technology. I found this very interesting as I believe it is one which is extremely relevant to our lives within the 21st century. Within our world in which we live in today and particularly within media, technology is first and foremost the basis for our communication and thus essential for us to understand the functioning of technology.

The development of the computer system is explored by Dourish (2004). Within this he discusses the evolution of computers and how over time, not only have computers changed but also our relationships with them as well, "We encounter computers in all aspects of everyday life" (2004, p.1).

Dourish explores the idea of how computers facilitate our needs, which is known as Human-Computer interaction.Dourish focuses primarily on Embodied Interaction. Embodied Interaction is defined as “interaction with computer systems that occupy our world, a world of physical and social reality, and that exploit this fact in how they interact with us” (2004, p.3).

The reading itself is split into four sections: electrical, symbolic, textual and graphical. Electrical refers to all the wiring and electrical circuits that were installed inside a computer for it to be able to function. The computer was set to do a specific set of instructions, in which the user had to manually conduct. The second part, symbolic, refers to the symbolic language that was created by humans in order to make the computer do different sets of instructions without having to refer to direct orders to complete them. The language was meant to facilitate the communication between humans and computers. This language was called assembly language, and with time it became programming language in which it would benefit the computer to complete his tasks. The third part, textual, refers to the evolution of programming language to written language, where humans interact with computers by writing to them instructions for them to conduct as the computers responds to them with what they are asking for. Finally, the fourth and final part is graphical, in which the interaction with the computer becomes graphical. The textual phase evolves into a more real experience, making the relationship between the computer not one dimensional, but two-dimensional.

If you think about Dourish's ideas they are extremely relevant to our world today. The idea that computers are becoming more faster and powerful over time only means that they will continue to do so within the future. Saying that if you look at our relationship we have with computers today can you imagine what they are going to be like in twenty years time?. I spend alot of time on my computer, and particularly social media which is argued by some as a virtual reality. This ties in closely with the idea of virtual reality vs augmented reality. 

According to Wikipedia "Augmented reality is a live, copy, view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented (or supplemented) by computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data. It is related to a more general concept called mediated reality, in which a view of reality is modified (possibly even diminished rather than augmented) by a computer"

Us as humans spend so much time with our computers now that it is essential for everyday life. This not only includes our laptop but things such as mobile phones, GPS devices and even our cars. I feel that the idea of virtual reality and augmented  reality will get closer and closer together as become so much more reliant on computers. Thus technology functions by enhancing one’s current perception of reality.

---------------------------------

Dourish, Paul (2004) 'A History of Interaction' in where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction, MA: MIT Press: 1-23

'Virtual Reality', Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/augmented_reality>

WEEK 4: Media, Minds and Bodies

This week in the lecture we discussed the practical and theoretical consequences of the way we model mind, media and bodies— and often all of these together. This had particular focus on the model of the mind. I would be lying if I said I found the concepts within this weeks lecture simple to understand but I think after much reflection I have started to get my head around them. Basically what i took away from the lecture is that there are  four main models in which the mind media and body are connected by : behaviourism, cognitivism, cybernetics and constructivism.

Both the behavioural and cognitivist models of the human mind and explanations of thought are significant to media theory and the way in which a person interacts with and uses varying forms of media. Behaviourism, which centres on the belief “that behaviours are learned (become habitual) as a result of reinforcement” (Case & Bereiter, 1984) has influenced media theories such as the media effects theory and dailiness. As behaviourism suggests that a person relies on memory and habits, rather than a mental process that is active, it is apparent that this model is reflected in the idea that media influences the way in which the people interacting with it behave and think; the media effects theory.Arguments that violent video games condition people to act violently and consider this the norm are a reflection of this model and the way in which the relationship with the media and the mind can be explained. Dailiness, or the media routine which the individual engages with each day, also suggests that the behavioural model is the correct way to view human thought, as it implies that a person follows habitual pattern rather than a sense of agency. This model can also be reflected in the idea that a person can be brain-washed, or to contextualise this idea, that a person’s habits and responses can be influenced by subtle changes to thought.

On the other hand the cognitivist model suggests that “intelligent behaviour can (only) be explained by appeal to internal ‘cognitive processes’, that is, rational thought in a very broad sense,” (Haugeland, 1978). This theory is influenced by modern media as it is often rationalised by the comparison of the human mind to a computer, with each decision being a logical and processed action. As such, media becomes part of a rational thought process, used to communicate and process information. Essentially the individual, rather than include the media in its habitual routine, has agency and rationally engages with it. When interacting with a violent video game, rather than adapting their own behaviour to the actions portrayed in the game, the person processes the information and files it accordingly into the mental process, recognising it as a media construct and not as appropriate behaviour.

----------------

Case, R & Bereiter, C 1984, From behaviourism to cognitive behaviourism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design, Instructional Science, vol. 13, page 141-158

Haugeland, J 1978, The nature and plausibility of cognitivism, Behavioural and Brain science, vol. 2, page 215-266