So what's in store for Digital Culture?

What does the future hold for digital cultures? Who really knows? We can only guess at what is going to happen. However I believe that the future for digital cultures is bright.

The number of people that the digital culture effects is massive. These people are all impacting on the way in which the digital world will evolve, with different needs, desires and expectations all impacting on the evolution of digital cultures.

One thing i can say for sure is that it will continue to play a pivotal role in our lives for a long time to come. The digital world is still in the early stages and i strongly believe there is a lot more potential for advancements in this area.

Nonetheless as i said earlier it is hard to accurately predict what the future holds. Could the digital culture turn us all into zombie like creatures, just passively soaking up information and almost brainwashed? That is probably the future that some people behold for digital cultures. Some believe that the digital world could be used against us. In an age where we frequently hear of acts of terrorism, some believe that the digital world could be target for such terrorist attacks. It seems ludicrous that perhaps a terrorist group could attack things such as military computers and put millions at risk by using the information against them.

Things like this are a possible reality, however as i said before i expect the world of digital cultures to expand, continue to create new technologies and and remain a forefront for innovation.

A time for reflection

Earlier today i sat in my room reflecting on some of the things i had learned in my digital cultures lessons. When looking back through my blog i was quite astounded, the amount of issues, complications and indeed amazing technologies that have arisen from the digital world, was sheerly amazing.

I've learned not only the technological jargon that comes with the world of digital culture, but perhaps more importantly about the society that evolves around a digital world. The impact the digital era is affecting everybody's lives, some say for better, others would argue otherwise.

One of my favourite areas that i have studied has to be virtual reality. The idea that one day you could possibly completely immerse yourself in a game, to the point where you are in control of the game with movements of your own body. Imagine in a few years time perhaps we will be wearing costumes when playing games consoles, projecting an image of yourself onto the gaming platform. Its also something that is being used for scientific research, helping train doctors and nurses and so forth (Refer to my previous blog Virtual Reality for more information), the fact that the human race is capable of creating a virtual reality astounds me.

For me however, an area that spoils digital cultures for me is the laws and restriction that come with it. Things like copyright laws, which i know play a pivotal role in the smooth running and operations of business etc. However for me the world of digital cultures, a fantastic thing which allows for the creation of new and innovative ideas. The sharing of information and artistic approach to what much of the digital culture has to offer, seems to be all derived from developing ideas. Laws like this and various offers seem to be putting a strain on people being creative. If you refer to a previous blog Copyright which i have posted, you will see how these laws are stopping the production of innovative ideas.

The world of digital cultures is extremely interesting, when you actually look closely at the effects it has on many of our lives it is truly astounding. Technologies and such like that have sprung up through the digital world are a true testimony to mankinds ability to adapt, be revolutionary and strive for a better life. The digital world is somewhat taken for granted, atleast that is true for me. Being born in 1990 i am clearly a person that was brought up in this digital era. The fact that it has always been a part of my life, means that i sometimes forget just how much i rely on it. I feel that the digital culture is something that we should all pay much more attention to.

The Long Tail Effect

Prosuming

The term "Prosuming" comes from the combination of consuming and producing. When looking at this term in connection with the media, it becomes clear how easy it is now for not only the intellectual elite, but the average joe to produce there own digital literature.

Once again the availability of digital media platforms has allowed individuals to flex their creative energies and participate in media where their views can be heard. Various media programs such as the Young Journalist Group in Vietnam (YOJO), are allowing individuals to express their opinions more and more on subjects such as politics, and gives a wider scope for issues of public awareness to be raised.

In my humble opinion prosuming can only be a good thing, allowing for a much wider scope for individuals to express their concerns, views and ideas about whatever they desire. It can be said that prosuming can give us a detailed insight into the culture and society that has boomed from the digital era.

Privacy

"In many primitive communal societies, people live openly and tolerate much greater degrees of visibility than people in modern industrialised societies" - Daniel J Solove, Understanding Privacy 2008

The statement above gives us a great picture of todays society. Its a society in which discretion, privacy and safety are at the top of the list when it comes to the needs of todays public. Privacy has always been a feature in the lives of humans, take for instance the door at the front of your house. An invention made to keep out peeking eyes or unwanted intruders from your personal space. That very same need for safety is a trait that is still embossed on todays society.

New technologies such as cameras and recording devices have allowed the general public to have an even higher sense of security about them. But how far can this technology be taken? Is this technology that was meant to keep us safe actually being used against us?

Living in the 21st Century we are used to seeing CCTV cameras dotted all over the country that are constantly monitored. When i think about my own privacy its only then that i realise that in-fact i have a lot less privacy that i actually thought. The introduction of new technologies means that our whole lives are constantly being monitored, checked and followed. Our personal details are on file all over the place and easily accessed, and its all down to the very same technologies that were supposed to make our lives safer and more private.

Identity fraud is a familiar crime within modern society, another being credit card fraud. These are crimes that are steadily rising in frequency as the advancements in technology rise. It lead me to question whether or not our lives were truly more private before major advancements in surveillance technologies etc.? Primitive societies seemed to have more privacy than we do today, this can be seen as a direct implication of having a society in which handing out personal details and suchlike over social networking sites for example is an all too frequent occurance.

As i have said in previous blogs, it is time to stop and re-evaluate the impact that we are having on our own societies.

Why study digital cultures?

Why did i choose to study digital cultures? This is a question that bounds around my head as i near the end of my first year of studying the subject. The immediate answer to that question would be; because i myself had become aware of the culture that has quickly formed out of the digital era.

Culture is an eloquent thing. Raymond Williams sums it up as having three main features as follows;

1. A general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development.
2. A particular way of life.
3. The works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity.

The culture that has arisen from the digital era conforms to these three points and is quite extraordinary. When taking into account that the vast majority of the worlds population regularly interacting with digital media and such like, it is easy to see how an amazing culture has arisen. Digital forms of art, poetry and philosophy are now part of our lives. The digital world is one that is forever expanding.

The digital culture is one with an extreme amount of wealth within it. Take for instance the first mobile phone. This is an example of a product created with digital technology. There are now over 3.3 billion mobile phones in the world, a number which just like the amount of money made from these products, is staggering.

Another feature of the digital culture that i found extremely interesting was the fact that there is a pure strive and dreams for even newer media. Its the fact that even though the digital world is extremely advanced, it has created a norm to strive for better. The way in which media is now so readily available through digital systems is astounding. However, new and exciting ideas are still forming from the digital culture. Take for instance virtual reality (something i wont go into in detail as i have previous blogs on it), this is a new form of immersion into a virtual world, created from ideas and concepts that steam from the digital culture.

These are just a few reasons why i have chosen to study digital cultures, its a unique culture, one affecting people the world over and is therefore an extremely pivotal part of the whole of society.

Cyberspace in the community

"Cyberspace can be seen as the new bomb, a pacific blaze that will project the imprint of our disembodied selves on the walls of eternity" - Nicole Stenger - Animator

What an amazing quote, cyberspace is being compared with a bomb. Giving to the notion that the the explosion of cyberspace is just that - explosive.

Cyberspace is one of those amazing feats of man kind. Just think about it, the world wide web, interactive gaming, virtual reality the list is endless. Its a thing that all of us are aware of as the vast majority of us interact with cyberspace in our day to day lives. The author, William Gibons describes cyberspace as the following;

"A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts...A graphical representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the non-space of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding..."

Cyberspace is now clearly embedded in the social norms that make up our society. So much so that many believe that the technology of the internet is making us a lot more social and forming a new kind of community. I can agree with this to some extent, its obvious that the internet and cyberspace as a whole has made communicating to others substantially easier. The internet is allowing interaction between people so easy that now, all you have to do to see and speak to a friend that lives on the other side of the planet, is switch on your computer.

My problem with the quote is that yes, interaction between people has become easier, but what is the off-spin from such interaction? Cyber-bullying being the main thing that springs to mind. A new form of bullying has taken over, bullying that is now even easier for one to participate in, simply because the face to face barrier is no longer there. Another problem that seems to be arising from cyberspace is that it seems to be making a false community, one that is based on nonchalant conversations, often not even via a web-cam. Could it be leading to a less personal community? What would the effects of this be? These are questions well worth a ponder over...

The open source movement

Open source:

"Free access to the source code of a program and extensive free redistribution rights for this product" - Dr Gavin Stewart 2010

Microsoft excel, power-point, word. All of these programs are used in the average joe's day to day life. However, to access these programs you have to pay a fee, sometimes a very high fee. After paying for the product you are allowed to then use the intelligence that comes with them for as long as you own them. However; i thought that when you buy something, it's yours. Yours to keep, play about with and do almost whatever you desire to do with it as it is - in essence "yours". Nonetheless if you tampered with the core intelligence of such programs, or even decide to share the product over the web with others you are in-fact committing an illegal offence. That is because these programs are protected under copyright laws, allowing the 'real' owner of the product (Bill Gates in this instance) to sue you, even though you have already purchased the product and may have deemed it "yours".

It is this exact frustrating and somewhat unfair reason that led to the birth of the open source movement...

You probably dont even realise when your using open source software. However open source software is now all around us. If you have a Facebook account you are in-fact using an open source program, inputting data, manipulating and redistributing it.

"Facebook has created the worlds most popular social networking sites with over 350million users to date on linux and open source technologies such as PHP" - Ken Hess 2009

The fact that users of such programs are now able to do almost whatever they like to it, whether it be to share it, manipulate the information and redistribute it without facing the the possibility of being fined to do so is something that has the large conglomerates such as Microsoft and Apple shaking in their boots.

Why would normal people pay for software which - ultimately - is not really there's. They are not able to redistribute the information or adapt it in anyway. So, with the introduction of free programmes, in which you can use in anyway you want without the possibility of being sued or fined for misuse of the product, many large companies are in fear for there finances.

However much of a good idea the open source movement may seem there will always be downsides of such products in the eyes of some. For instance many people are now saying that the software may have a wider impact on society as a whole. By promoting FREE distribution and manipulation of software many are saying that this removes the competition aspect of business. Also the word "free" is giving many the impression that products and software that come from the open source movement are allowing communist ideologies to creep into a capitalist society.

Can computer software and programs really have that much of an effect on society? It would seem a possible reality, as technology is ever impacting society in various ways. Just take a peek at my previous blogs, you'll see that society is very impressionable when it comes to new technologies programs and software, watch this space...

communist ideologies creeping into capitalist society?

Issues of the body

How would you like a fifth limb..? Artificially enhanced legs..? A cochlear implant perhaps? How about an implant in your brain that's capable of sending text message like information to another receiver? Far-fetched it may seem, however, ever increasing advancements in technology and technological research seem to be making such ludicrous ideas a possible reality...

The idea that; " the body is an array of sub-assemblies called organs that carry out specific functions (e.g. legs are for walking, the eyes are for seeing etc.)" To quote Dr Gavin Stewart (2010), is obviously an approach that society agrees with... It is these "sub assemblies" and the notion that the body 'parts' are replaceable however that is at the very centre of a mass debate. Do we really want artificially enhanced organs, limbs and such like? Where do we draw the line with such scientific explorations?

It is undoubtedly a 'good thing' that the human race is now capable of replacing damaged limbs , with artificial ones. Take for instance the case of heroes such as Ben Mcbean, the marine that was blown up by a Taliban land mine in Afghanistan resulting in the loss of an arm and leg. Without scientific advancements in areas such as limb replacement, Ben would never have been able to run a marathon little over two years after his horrific injuries.

However scientists are exercising their capabilities more and more, and creating ever more advanced technologies. Take for instance the Cochlear Implant.

"A cochlear implant is a small, complex electronic device that can help to provide a sense of sound to a person who is profoundly deaf or severely hard-of-hearing. The implant consists of an external portion that sits behind the ear and a second portion that is surgically placed under the skin"

Giving a profoundly deaf person back the sense of sound is a remarkable scientific achievement for the human race. However could it be that the innate ability for humans to constantly strive for a better standard of living could in-fact lead to a world in which Frankenstein like monsters are roaming the streets. Could it be the case that society will become over obsessed with such scientific capabilities and step into a realm of creating artificial intelligence that one day could lead to the demise of our planet?

Society as we know it seems to be functioning pretty well so far. So it is my theory that we don't need to change an awful lot. The idea of scientists creating artificial intelligence is remarkable but actually quite a scary thought to me. Various questions fly around my mind when hearing the words "artificial intelligence". For instance what would happen if these so called "artificial intelligence" bodies become more and more intelligent? Could it be that a new strain disease may inadvertently arise from such research? Could this technology slip into the hands of a terrorist group, and instead of being used for the good of man kind actually be used as a weapon against us? It is questions like these that seem far-fetched, however i feel that these are possibilities that should be taken into account. Its time to stop and think, how far do we take such scientific explorations? When do we call it a day in the interests of society?

In the strive for better standards of living, ever greater scientific achievements and alike are we humans in-fact obliviously creating our own demise?

What effect is E-Government having on our privacy?

The birth of the digital era has brought about a number of staggering changes to our society, as you will know if you have had the chance to read my previous blogs. It seems that the storm of the digital area is one that the government has been extremely anxious to get involved with. When you consider how many people across the globe use the internet and various other digital forms, it is clear to see why the government would use the internet to address, contact and research the citizens of their country.

My problem with the whole idea of having an E-government is the lack of privacy that it allows the citizens of a country. With the government obtaining more and more information on its citizens online, the feel of personal privacy is lost. I found an interesting passage on Wikipedia that helps to explain my arguement:

"Increased contact between government and its citizens goes both ways. Once e-government begins to develop and become more sophisticated, citizens will be forced to interact electronically with the government on a larger scale. This could potentially lead to a lack of privacy for civilians as their government obtains more and more information on them. In a worse case scenario, with so much information being passed electronically between government and civilians, a totalitarian-like system could develop. When the government has easy access to countless information on its citizens, personal privacy is lost."

The amount of information governments now posses on their citizens is actually quite scary, from your bank details to your home address. This "hyper-surveillance" as it is known is just another term that really scares me.

Its time to stop and look at how private our lives really are, do we really have real privacy anymore? Or have the lines between privacy and regulation become somewhat distorted?

Copyright law - Help or Hindrance

“The concept of the copyright law was to promote sharing of knowledge, however will large corporations fighting over ownership and control of materials hinder the growth of new, creative and innovative ideas?”

Before delving deeper into my blog, I would like you to pause for a second and think - What would the world be like without copyright laws?

This is the very same question I found myself analysing by the end of my latest lecture on intellectual property, creative commons and DRM.

Without copyright laws authors, artists, scientists and such like would not be able to protect their work in which they have vested personal time and effort. Not being able to protect pieces of work, ideas, inventions and so forth would eventually lead to the creators of such material losing enthusiasm in creating as their material will simply be copied, stolen and manipulated; and worse the creator of the material will not gain from this in anyway. Its this fundamental point which brought me to the realisation that copyright laws play a huge role in protecting the creation of society and allows us to create and maintain our culture. By protecting work of artists; scientists and authors, more work is circulated through society as there would be more to gain in both financial and moral aspects from the creation of their work. Perhaps more importantly, this process aides society as a whole by creating more consumer choice, a means to better education and forging the way for better standards of living.

However, it would seem that the very same copyright laws that once enhanced creation and innovation could now hinder the progress of such ideas. This theory can be clearly illustrated when analysing conglomerates such as Microsoft and Apple.

When companies such as Apple create new technologies, patents are applied for and the copyright of the product is set in place. However; by protecting the technology under copyright law, it can be said that this may hinder the growth and development of new and innovative ideas. By gaining copyright on a product or intellectual property the owner of the material can sue anybody that tries to copy or use the material in any fashion. In his book ’Moral Panic and the Copyright Wars 2009, William Patry agrees with the idea of control of material owned by conglomerates by stating, “To make money, you have to serve customers, not sue them or control them” . The argument here seems to be as follows; we all follow templates in subject genres, how can we develop ideas if we cannot do so? It would seem that in order to develop new pieces of work, we must develop on previous ideas however this process is becoming more and more difficult due to the fact multi-national corporations main concern is making profit.

Its this exact philosophy that may eventually see an increased slow down in the creation of new ideas, and furthermore on a larger scale may hinder the progress and development of society as a whole.

How have advancements in technology propelled changes in media and news coverage?

Being a journalist student, I found this question extremely intriguing. When looking at media change it is important to take a look at the first forms of media. Going back before the age of the computer and even newspapers and books, the only way of distributing news would have been orally. However, when distributing news through word of mouth, we come across many issues. Firstly, information being passed orally often gets distorted and the initial ‘news’ would have no real relevance or credibility by the time it had reached a mass of people. A great example to back this up would be the age old game of ‘Chinese whispers’. anybody who has taken part in a game of Chinese whispers will understand how easily and quickly information can become distorted.

As you can see the ‘news’ would not have been distributed throughout a large proportion of society and still remain credible.

The importance of news in society is not to be under-estimated. News is important within society as people constantly have the need to either tell stories, gain an opinion on current events that effect their everyday lives and news also has the ability to bring society together.
“The rapid circulation of news is evidence of more than just the desire of individuals to know and tell; it is evidence of societal commitment.” Michael Stephens, a history of news pg 15. This quote backs up my opinion of news in society.

Advancements in technology have certainly improved the availability of news on a huge scale. Take for instance the humble newspaper. Newspapers are available on a local scale, containing news from your local constituency and filled with issues that are effecting your area. However newspapers are now available on a national and international scale, and are made available to everyone, paving the way for societies need for accurate, relevant and credible news to be fulfilled.

Further advancements in technology such as the internet and computers, have prompted an explosion in the amount of information made available across all media platforms. Take for example the internet which nowadays is available globally, therefore any information posted on the internet can be viewed by masses of people in an instance. A great advantage of online news is clearly the ease of which the information can be accessed. In the click of a button we can see news from, the US, Asia, Europe, the Americas and so forth, allowing the user to gain a wider perspective on current affairs.

It cannot be questioned that with great advancements in technology, society has become a fountain of knowledge with infinite amounts of information no more than a click away.

Issues of the interface. How has the advancements in interface technology helped society?

In a recent lecture that I attended, we discussed issues of the interface. Before spewing my opinions of the interface all over this page, I fell that it is important to first define exactly what we mean by the ‘interface’.

Dr Gavin Stewart offers the following definition of an interface; “User interface is a means by which people interact with a particular machine, device or computer programme.”
An example of a modern day user interface, can be seen when looking at the computer screen. The computer screen allows the user to input information, and see the result of there manipulation in the output. For example, if the user was to type on their keyboard, the information that they input would manipulated and appear on the interface (screen) in front of them.

The advancements in user interfaces has provided an altogether better experience for the user. Now having the ability to visually see the effects of the data they input.
It cannot be argued that interfaces have had a tremendous effect on society. More information is now readily available with the introduction of computer screens as an interface. The earliest models of computers did not have a screen as an interface, therefore rendering the computers a lot less useful to the masses.

Another example of an interface can be seen when looking at ATM machines and the idea of chip and pin bank cards. Many moons ago the only way in which you would be able to transfer money to another bank would have to of been done manually. Carrying around large sums of money is extremely dangerous and risky, not only because of the possibility of being mugged by one of the many anti-social hoodlums that grace the earth, but also the mere fact hat money is easy to lose or misplace. The introduction of ATM machines and chip and pin cards allow the user to transfer large sums of money between banks discretely, safely and easily. Saving the user time, effort and making it a very easy experience.

In my opinion the advancements of new interfaces is a great thing for society. It generates a society in which the public have more ‘free’ time due to the efficiency of interactions between humans and interfaces. However it must be said that the rapid advancements in such technology also come with its downfalls, as society becomes more dependant on technology an age of cyber-warfare is looking more possible, with crooks able to intersect vital personal information stored within databases connected to the interface. With this many individuals are at risk of, bank accounts, e -mails and various other personal details being hacked into. All I can say on the matter is, watch this space…

Web 2.0. Who is working for who?

I recently attended a lecture at university on ‘Web 2.0’. This was a word that I had heard bouncing around a few times, but never truly understood the meaning and concept behind it. From the lecture I formed my own brief conclusion of what exactly Web 2.0 is. It is an enhancement of the original world wide web. Before the introduction of Web 2.0, Web 1.0 as it was known was the first real set of sites with interactive facilities. Web 2.0 is a conglomerate of websites such as; Facebook, You Tube and E-bay, which all allow the user to input and take control of their own information in a more flexible way. All of the Web 2.0 sites are maintained mostly by the user, take for instance Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply a database which is controlled by anyone who wishes to input information to that database. It can be changed and the content replaced by other users, therefore making it extremely interactive.

The birth of Web 2.0 has made communication and sharing a much more enjoyable, easy experience. When looking at a site such as You Tube (which once again is a database where users can store and control content and information) it is clear to see how easy information sharing has become with the creation of Web 2.0. For those of you that are not familiar with You Tube, it is simply a website in which users can post videos and share them on a world wide scale. Taking the fact that the whole of the content on the website is owned by the individual that posts, you can see why You Tube is such a phenomenon. Like many of the websites contained in Web 2.0 the internet sites often do not own anything. The databases are completely updated by the user, thereby providing user generated content available on a world wide scale. It would seem that no longer does the internet have to slave over our individual needs, as the human population is now able to cater for them selves with the ever growing interactivity of Web 2.0.

However, what may seem as an advantage to many is seen as the complete opposite by other individuals. Andrew Keen is one of those individuals. In a blog entry he gave us his opinion of Web 2.0 “Truth and trust are the whipping boys of the Web2.0 revolution”. I can personally emphasise with Andrew on this. It would seem the simple design of Web 2.0 allows for the creators of the site to do relatively little work, but still reap the huge benefits from the user generated content. This seems unfair as the users of the site rarely gain any benefits from their input, other than the satisfaction of having more interactive content.

In my own opinion I feel the colossal rising of Web 2.0 has allowed for a massively improved overall internet experience. The fact that the owners of such sites are doing relatively no work in comparison to the users, isn’t the most significant point. The fact that the creation of these sites allow users such a variety in interactivity, thus enhancing the users experience.

Will there be ’media convergence’ or a collision between ‘New’ media and ‘Old’ media?

Before tackling the issue of the possibility of new media colliding with forms of old media, I feel it is vital to first establish what we mean by ‘media convergence‘.
An example of media convergence can be seen when looking at the differences between various platforms. Take for instance the traditional method of reading literature items. Before the great advances in technology for centuries we as humans relied heavily on books as our only means to reading literature pieces. However, with the birth of the internet a new form of media or ’New media’ was born. The birth of the internet paved the way for wide scale, easy access to a colossal number of books in a matter of seconds. Thus combining the ‘old’ media form with ‘new’ media to create a more efficient form of media.
Henry Jenkins opinion of media change in his book ‘Convergence Culture‘, courts my above example excellently, he states: "In the world of Media Convergence, every important story gets told, every brand gets sold, and every consumer gets courted across multiple media platforms."
However, with the creation of ‘new’ media comes a threat to ’old’ media. More traditional forms of media such as books may become a thing of the past, with the creation of ‘new’ media such as e-books. As ‘new’ media tends to be quicker and more readily available on a larger scale it tends to over shadow older forms of media. I feel it is important for society, that with the introduction of ‘new‘ media, ‘old’ media should not be cast into the darkness on a whim, it is vital that all forms of media, including new and old, to remain available.
It must be said that although there will undoubtedly be a collision between ‘new’ and ‘old’ media; as can be seen with the collision of the internet and traditional reading methods. However, as many people fear the introduction of new forms of media may not necessarily mean the death of old media. The simple reason being new forms of media tend to be unreliable at times, whereas many old forms of media are extremely reliable. For example, if the internet was not working properly an individual will not be able to read e-books, whereas a hard copy of the book is capable of taking a good bashing around and still remain readable. These simple facts tend to mean the population in general are more likely to stick with the ‘old’ forms of media, with some of the population swaying towards ‘new’ media. Therefore meaning that over time ‘new’ media will become more popular and will slowly take the spot as ‘old’ media, paving the way for the process to begin again and create more ‘new’ media. So I feel that the ‘collision’ of ‘new’ and ‘old’ media, will in-fact, be more of a coming together over time.
However, strongly opposed ’new’ media may be by many of the older generation, and those of us that prefer old methods that we feel comfortable in using. Whether we like it or not, a coming together of new and old media seems to be imminent. In my humble opinion I believe that the development of ‘new’ media is vital in order for information to be made even more readily available, on a global scale with the ease and reliability of many ‘old’ media forms. However, I feel that the many of us that prefer ‘old’ media forms, should not start panicking just yet as ‘old’ media forms will not be cast into the past just yet.