communities in 256-bit

I have been aware of China’s internet policies and regulations since high school, but I couldn’t tell you much more other than when you search for ‘Tiananmen Square’ in Australia you get very different results than what you would find if searched from China. After approaching the readings and videos from this week I am amazed at not only the types of things they police, but the extent in which their internet usage has grown and what they have managed to do with it.

500 million internet users, 90% of them on social media, and 75% of those users under 30 years old… They are some staggering numbers. Yes, China has a large population, but with 394 million people living on less that $2 a day (World Bank, 2008), it’s a worthy statistic to be surprised about.

In Michael Anti’s 2011 TED talk on ‘The great firewall of China’ I made even more discoveries about China’s social media usage. It’s not that China has no social media, it just doesn’t have Western social media. When China approached Google and requested that they keep Chinese users’ servers in China and under control of the Beijing government, Google pulled out of the country. Using Arab government examples, Anti goes on to explain how when you take away the internet from the users, the users go onto the street. This statement impacted me the most and got me thinking about the lack of control governments have over common people due to the internet. If Australia decided to shut down the internet, would the 20 million internet users take to the streets in protest? I think they would. But how would that end? Are we all so simply tipped over the edge by the removal of the internet? It’s a service we’ve only really had for roughly 20 years, yet it is so embedded in our lives now it would have similar emotional impacts as if they tried to cut of our water supply; a much more deadly and disgraceful act.

If China took down its social media firewall and allowed for services such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, the internet would become a very different place. Online shopping would explode in Western societies as direct access to manufacturers would be more widely known. There would be an exponential shift in the global stock trade as marketers were given access to 500 million new online targets. It would be a massive chapter in internet history.

World Bank, 2008, Poverty & Equity, viewed 23 May 2014, <http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/CHN>

This week we looked at the characteristics of online games in facilitating digital communities and online publics. Rather than trying to do a critical analysis of the topic, I thought I would share some of my experiences with online gaming and delve into the various communities I found myself in.

My online gaming experiences started in 2006 when I first played World of Warcraft (WoW). I was told by my best friend that it was the greatest game ever, and being an avid gamer my whole life I was ready to take him up on that. WoW was my online gaming gateway and it changed my gaming habits forever. I remember my mate telling me how it was $30 every two months, but I didn’t care, I was convinced the second I entered Azeroth for the first time.

I played religiously through every expansion; dropping in and out months at a time when I had achieved everything I wanted to, finally coming to a stop in mid-2013. During that time I was a member of many guilds; communities of players who strived for certain goals. In the beginning I joined some smaller guilds with my friends just so we could have people to help us do quests, and after a year or two when I started getting really into end game content I joined with more active guilds with weekly dungeon raiding schedules, rosters, banks, hierarchies and rules. I established myself in various guild communities depending on which characters I played. At one point I had four active characters: a restoration shaman, a discipline priest, an assassination rogue, and a protection warrior. My shaman was my main character at the time and was deeply embedded in weekly raids acting as a main healer. Raids are very long and challenging dungeons where 10 or 25 players work together to defeat all the bosses. A common raid set up has two tanks who take the bulk of the damage and protect the rest of the group, 2-5 healers (depending on the size of the group) who heal the players to make sure no one dies, and the rest provide ranged and melee damage to bring down the boss as fast as possible. As the main healer for my guilds’ primary raid team, I established a pretty strong position in the hierarchy and was well respected among the guild community. I was a guild officer and lead my own team of healers. This was probably the most authority I ever had, and probably the most popularity too – but it was far from my only form of WoW community I participated in.

My alternate character was a discipline priest which was focused primarily on being a Player versus Player (PvP) healer. PvP is the term given to all forms of player versus player combat. It includes battlegrounds - where the two warring factions compete against each other in various game styles ranging from 10v10 capture the flag style games to 40v40 strategic campaigns, arena – where small teams of 2, 3 or 5 are pitted against other teams until the last team is standing, and world PvP – where you go out into contested or enemy controlled territory and kill unsuspecting players and raid towns. My priest was a member of a very different guild, more orientated towards PvP, where officers would organise ‘pre-made’ battleground teams in order to coordinate a more precise strategy against the opposing faction. ‘Pre-mades’ were a force to be reckoned with, as most battle grounds were compiled with randomly selected players who don’t know each other, often ending in disaster as everyone is running around with different goals in mind, tending to lose sight of the main objective. A pre-made, much like a dungeon raid, would set themselves up on a VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) service in order to verbally communicate with one another, in turn coordinating a more effective battle.

Communication was an interesting dynamic to WoW. Whenever I would play with friends we would always be connected over some form of VoIP service. Whereas with my guilds, voice chat would only take place during organised raiding times, and even then you spend most of your time listening to the raid leader than you do talking. Conversation would only take place during quiet or easy moments of the dungeon, and it would almost always be about something game related. Regular chat was a whole different story. The WoW chat service was a box in the bottom left corner where each line was coloured depending on what type of chat it was. There was zone chat – which would automatically change depending on what area you were in, group chat – where could only speak to people who were a member of your group, guild chat – which was a communication channel between your guild which had sub categories such as officer chat, whisper – a tag used to communicate privately with an individual player, and various others such as say, yell, raid, battleground, local defence, emote and trade, each with their own unique properties. Two fascinating chat tags were ‘say’ and ‘yell’ as they were not filtered by opposing factions. For instance, if you were in a contested area which had players of both faction, your chat over the ‘zone’ channel would not show up for the opposing faction, whereas ‘say’ and ‘yell’ would if you were close enough to the player sending the message. The only catch was that these crossover channels would be written in your factions language, meaning the opposing faction couldn’t read it unless they had a translating website open. This would result in some really interesting displays of communication within enemies – if they decided not to kill each other. The alternative was typing out an emote, which would write out what the opposing player was doing, such as Gandalf spits on you. These emotes are coded into the game and make for some pretty funny confrontations.

WoW is full of community experiences. You spend so much of the game with other people allowing for new and surprising things to happen each time you log on. Some of the best moments of recognition are when you are in a massive battle with the opposing faction, be it out in the world or in a battleground, and a small member of your party is getting pushed back by a strong team of enemies and you run in just in time to save the day. As a healer, this is particularly rewarding due to your ability to protect everyone and get their health back to a safe level so that they can force back the enemy.

On the contrary, you are often scrutinised for making bad decisions that let others down. I was once leading a raid as the main healer and halfway through a 20 minute conflict I made a lapse in judgement causing the entire team to die. These mistakes happen but boy do you hear about it after.

I could go on for hours, but I don’t want this post to get too long.

Photography plays a massive role in our digital lives – by why, and how?

In 1888 Kodak released its first handheld camera and therefore shifted our interactions with photography. Before this time, the art of photography (or taking of a photo) was limited to professionals, often hired to capture family portraits, class photos and major events. With the introduction of the personal camera, photographic documentation became more candid and placed in the hands of everyday people.

Step forward 120 years and we have quite literally captured the entire surface of the world; Google Earth has used satellite photos to map whole globe. There are 1.15 billion Facebook users, most of which have at least a profile photo. You are probably in the background of hundreds of photos captured by strangers, an empty ghost trapped in their memories.

Our natural affiliation with photography worked hand in hand with the shift in online media platforms and the enhancements in technology. When desktop computing was the norm, blogs were the fundamental outlet for documenting life experiences, often in 500-1000 words. With the introduction of laptops, we saw microblog platforms such as Facebook and Twitter beginning to emerge, and documenting shifted to sharing. As smart phones and app technology took the stage, and hardware enabled people to snap-and-share right from their hands, platforms like YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest and Snapchat forever changed our relationship with photography.

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

In our readings this week I discovered a new word which shifted my perception of social media completely; affinity. Anthropologist Bonnie Nardi defines affinity as “feelings of connection between people.” A feeling of connection is often “an openness to interacting with another person. Affinity is achieved through activities of social bonding in which people come to feel connected with one another, readying them for further communication” (Lange, 2009). Reading this was an epiphany moment for me, as I managed to draw a link between affinity and the affordances found within social media platforms. Affinity can be attained through almost any social media platform, but it is the affordances within these platforms which alter the way in which affinity is achieved.

Facebook – Text based microblog platform. Affordances give users a ‘voice’. Acts as a ‘hub’ for other platforms. Worth is measured by likes, friends and comments. Affinity is achieved through mass connectivity.

Instagram – Photographically focused with an introduction of video. Quick and easy editing tools make photos web friendly (not too big) and professional looking. Size and framing restrictions give the platform a ‘news feed’ style browsing structure. Worth is measured by likes, followers and comments. Tagging functionality groups content. Affinity is achieved through visual expression and connectivity. Anyone is a professional photographer.

YouTube – Video focus. Gives the average Joe access to potential fame. Linking and embedding systems provide easy sharing. Worth is measured by views and subscribers. Affinity is achieved through storytelling.

Pinterest – Image based platform built around sharing. ‘Mood-board’ style layout allows for easy browsing. Promotes discovery rather than personal creation (over 80% of pins are re-pins). Worth is measured by likes, pins and re-pins. Affinity is achieved through like minds.

Snapchat – Photo and video based platform built on ‘instant messaging’ style fundamentals. Restricted to images taken directly from camera at given time, i.e. you can’t upload images/videos. Sent items disappear after recipient has viewed it. You choose exactly who you want to send your item to. Worth is measured by a score accumulated by snaps sent and received; a measure of activity. Affinity is achieved through personal sharing.

Each platform offers its own set of affordances which therefore alter the way in which affinity can be gained by using the platform. As software developers and marketers begin to find new holes in peoples sense of belonging in the digital world, new platforms will arise to fill those holes. QuizUp is a social app in which you compete against friends in various quizzes across hundreds of topics. Depending on how successful you are in each category, ranks and titles are awarded to boast your greatness. Affinity is achieved through knowledge and competition.

Before approaching the week 8 readings on crowd sourcing in times of crisis, I was largely unaware of how effectively people used social media during disasters. I was unaware of the concept of a crowd map. My knowledge of crowdsourcing went about as far as crowd funding, such as Kickstarter, and crowd knowledge, like Wikipedia. I personally find this notion incredible. It’s this fascinating, organic construction of human interaction which flows together so beautifully. It’s a reminder that humans are survivalists and will naturally manipulate the resources at hand to further their existence; in this case, the need for assistance in hard times.

However, verification was a term passed around quite a bit when I explored the concepts – crowd sourced information can quickly turn into a game of Chinese whispers if there is no one around to mediate the content. And relying again on the crowd itself to verify information, like what is seen in Wikipedia, is far too risky in a crisis situation. Placing crowd mapping at the forefront of a disaster scenario can place large amounts of risk on emergency responders if the balance between traditionally sourced information and crowd sourced information is skewed to heavily towards the latter. Adding panic and confusion to the mix makes matters worse, particularly if you’re trying to prioritise emergency situations and all of your sources are from frightened and muddled citizens.

It’s the affordances of each platform which begin to play major roles in these events. Twitter, for example, relies on the ability to group together content based on tags, a particularly useful quality as seen in the Queensland flooding disaster where users would use the tags #qldfloods and @QPSMedia as identifiers for their alerts. It’s the additional affordances within platforms like Twitter, such as the ability to post a photo, which would further assist in these situations and greatly increase the validity of information due to real-time photographic documentation.

Web trolling is the battle that can never be won. You can’t take away someone’s ability to speak their mind on the internet the same way you can’t take away someone’s ability to speak in real life. The only difference here is that trolls are protected by distance and anonymity (to some degree). In this post, I will be exploring some of the defences against trolling.

In our readings, we were asked whether or not Australia needs a cyber-safety or social media ombudsman. An ombudsman is a government elected body which deals with various complaints in the interests of the public. A social media ombudsman would extend the codes of conduct found in terms and conditions for various networking platforms. If you were impacted by harassment, for instance, via Facebook you could go directly to your social media ombudsman and file a complaint against the offender, rather than lodge a regular report through Facebook itself. This greatly increases your chances of being responded to by localising the service. But the fact that something like this already exists within Facebook is our first problem. Shown below is the report menu for Facebook, through this you have the ability to report abusive conduct so that it might be actioned by Facebook staffers.

If you were to set up an ombudsman for social media, you would have to communicate it so effectively that people would be aware of it and feel comfortable using the service to report abusive conduct. The second problem with the ombudsman is that it too is subject to trolling. The difference between a social media ombudsman and, say, the Fair Work Australia ombudsman is that the latter assists with issues that actually affect an integral part of your life, where as social media is something you can live without (more or less), making the consequences of spam reporting people as a joke far less harsh.

In addition to this, we were also asked how effective we thought the Cybersmart website was an approach to ‘governing’ online behaviour and social media practice. Cybersmart is “a national cybersafety and cybersecurity education program managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), as part of the Australian Government's commitment to cybersafety” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014). I honestly think Cybersmart is acting more as an educational tool than a governing body; it doesn’t really govern online behaviour, it just points it in the right direction. I think it is a perfect tool for parents who don’t understand the medium, and a good tool for teachers educating kids at a very young age. In that respect I think this is probably the best ‘solution’ to online abuse or at least abuse management.

Another alternative is giving users the option to hide/deactivate comments and other forms of responsive material from posts and sites. YouTube gives you the option to deactivate the comment field of your videos. Facebook gives you the option to prevent people from being able to write on your wall or send you messages. Twitter allows you to ‘protect’ your tweets by only sending them to select people. Each year you see more of these settings being implemented into popular social media platforms as a way to protect people from harassment. This is an appropriate defence against abuse, but drastically changes your experiences with these platforms.

For as long as there has been leadership, there has been protest. No two people are the same and that will always result in opposition. Media affected the documentation of war in the same way it affected the documentation of activism; suddenly, when photographic recording equipment became widely available, the ability to broadcast imagery shifted the world’s general perception of what took place beyond our borders during times of struggle. Now it seems war, protest and disaster is everywhere – as if it sprung up over the last decade, but in reality things are just as shit as they have always been, it’s our ability to document these things that has changed. Recent generations of people seem more willing to participate in protest and activism as the ‘barriers to entry’ have been somewhat diminished. Signing a petition couldn't be easier with the help of online forms and distribution/awareness through social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Impactful campaign collateral is better and more professionally constructed due to the availability of high end consumer design software and web tutorials. Reach has greatly improved, again due to ridiculously popular social media platforms. Starting a revolution couldn't be easier… right?

I come from a design background, I can write fairly well, I have access to all kinds of political resources online, I don’t have a massive social media following but people in my network sure do – I have the ingredients for a social media driven protest, but how would I go about it? And what platforms would I use?

In order of most useful platform – my protest campaign:

YouTube – Establish the movement If KONY2012 taught me one thing about activism, it’s to make an awesome YouTube video. Research has shown that up to 55% of human communication may occur through non-verbal facial expressions, and a further 38% through paralanguage (Mehrabian, 1972). If you want to convey an emotion, or even instil an emotion, your best bet is to create something visual. And the most effective form of visual communication media is video. Beyond YouTube’s obvious affordances such as the ability to store and share videos, the video giant also has an amazing ability to key into trending videos and calculate worth through total views, likes and dislikes, and comments. In addition to this, YouTube is a very functional and well-designed platform, making it accessible to anyone with an internet connection, regardless of device.  Although you can post anything within YouTube’s “Community Guidelines”, the platform is still a mediated body and subject to government scrutiny; therefore, anything ‘anti-establishment’ would instantly put you on the radar. And to make matters worse, YouTube is owned by the biggest data mining company in the world, meaning you would have to construct a pretty complicated alias in order to stay anonymous.

Facebook – Enlist your followers Once you have gathered enough attention with your fancy video, you would then need to build a channel of organised communication, preferably within a medium with the largest population. Facebook has 1.15 billion users, making it the largest and most active social platform. Facebook offers affordances that cater to organisation and communication, such as groups, comments, likes, the ability to post photos and videos and the ability to share almost anything on the internet. With these tools you can accumulate a following in one place, and communicate to them, in real-time. Additionally, Facebook’s ability to ‘speak’ to YouTube grants a spill-over effect where YouTube viewers can be sent to Facebook and vice versa.

Twitter – Stay in tune Twitter is an excellent tool for sending out real-time messages to select groups of people. The limitations of the platform, such as character restrictions, help keep messages short and sharp, and the tagging feature keeps communication categorised. During a protest, Twitter acts as an instant messenger service to all of those who are following the movements of the event. If you were to coordinate a shift in the protest, you could tweet your strategy and all of those tuned into the feed could absorb the message at once and choose to follow suit. Twitter has some other interesting benefits in regards to activism. For instance, for a campaign to be successful you need influence; I’m just a 23 year old student from Melbourne with no real significance whatsoever, and many of my friends and networks fall within a similar category – we aren’t really worth listening to. Twitter is often considered to have the closest real connection to people, given the low involvement of the platform, i.e. it doesn’t require much effort to maintain an active Twitter account. It’s more difficult to fabricate a personal Twitter account as much of your activity is generally about what you are doing at a given time. Because of this, celebrities and influential people flock to Twitter as a means of expressing their own voice, beyond the realm of their PR managers. If celebrities feel passionate about something they will tweet about it. Once again, linking Twitter to your fancy YouTube video is a sure-fire way of gaining influence from powerful people.

Snapchat – Move in the shadows The fourth and final social media platform on my list is Snapchat. Although the first three platforms are great for communicating a protest, they all fail in the same area: anonymity. Once your movement is established and your followers are ready to burn down some buildings, you need to really begin protecting your privacy. All is well when you’re having a go at your government on social media, but actions speak much louder than words, and when you’re planning to set fire to your prime ministers car you’d be wanting to take some extra precaution. Snapchat claims full anonymity when using its service. You can choose exactly who you want to send content to and pictures and messages are deleted straight after the recipient has viewed them. In a protest situation, this could work much like your normal phone messaging system, only is faster and if you get picked up by authorities there is no record of your communication left on your phone. The only downside to Snapchat in this sort of environment is that you have to select each recipient one by one, and if you were trying to contact hundreds of people you would be tapping away at your phone for a very long time.

Although each platform has its benefits, the underpinning issue is that these services are maintained by external bodies who have the right to remove content that would be considered ‘harmful’ to their business.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn’t work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?

[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]