Pondering Publishing

Ubiquotous computing isn't a concept - it's completely a reality. More and more, aps and computer functions are given to the most mundane objects - and most of the computing is done in the cloud. 

This week we consider the ever-blurring line between technology and everyday life. Our shoes, phones, fridges, books, shops and so much more are now also computers. Cloud technology allows so many devices to extend and stretch their capacities even further than before, allowing one big seamless, neverending connection. We are constantly wired in, and most of our social interactions, transactions, archives, data, money doesn't even physically exist anymore. 

Bollier's reading raises the idea of the ambient commons, and how they are slowly being changed - not necessarily enhanced - by this influx of technology. The fact that retailers are having to track our movements in stores to find out how to get us to buy things instore, physically - not online, seems bizarre. Our attention needs to be actively sought after, because we are focussing so much of it on computers, which are now everywhere.

The advent of phones with internet access, tablets that can store as much data as your desktop and even watches that are constantly wired in to the "cloud" - gathering, sending and storing information always, is having an impact on the way we navigate and function in the world. The internet of things is making more and more of our physical surrounds, redundant. We don't need signs  or maps to tell us where to do, because the device in our pocket will do that for us. We don't even need a shopping list, because our fridge has probably already got one ready to send to our local supermarket and there is no chance they will forget the milk. 

Computers, that aren't even computers, taking over so much of the regular functioning of everyday life - must have some societal impact. In years to come, will be remember how to read a map, will anybody bother writing down phone numbers? And the big question - what happens if we loose the cloud? 

References

The Australian people probably value transparency and honesty above all else. We mean what we say, and we say what we do. In the current political climate, the age of Snowden, Assange and that bottle of Penfolds grange, a feeling of distrust of both government and press is brewing. 

This weeks readings look at the advent of new technology, and it's impact on existing ecologies of power. It has been said many times, that the internet has democratised the press - giving anyone with a  keyboard and internet access the power to publish comments, opinion, news - accessible by the entire world (well - anyone with internet access.) It can also be argued that new technologies also have the potential to democratise democracy. 

A term that is crucial to this democratisation, in both accounts, is sousveillance -which was coined by Steve Mann and discussed in the Bollier reading.  This term refers to bottom up survelliance, so rather than the powerful watching the public, the public have the capacity to watch the powerful which challenges the existing structure of societal authority.

The Snowden leaks are a great example of this occurring on a grand scale, where a government has been undermined by a citizen combined with the reach and power of traditional media.However, once you become aware of this phenomenon the examples are endless. New technologies have given the power back to the people, and rather than the chosen representatives controlling the press of a company or country, we all have the capacity to contribute to their levels of transparency. You can take a photo of the hair you found in your McDonalds burger and upload it to their Facebook page, you can record video footage of police brutality publish it on Twitter, and you can create an online discussion that defy's the government. 

I think currently, the people at the top haven't got a handle on the new media environment, but we are slowly seeing them catch up. Online comments will slowly get more astro-turfers. The government will stop releasing any information at all on certain subjects. There will be more instances of our big date being monitored. But the most interesting prospect in the future, will be to see how the Snowdens' react. 

References

This weeks lectures and readings focussed heavily on the idea of framing. 

The Guardian article was the most interesting to me - because I am constantly surprised at the way framing works in politics. The most important insight into framing this article raised is that framing can be more powerful than fact or logic when it comes to influencing opinion.

I recently attended an information night, that was one of those wanky "How can we make change?" type of scenarios, with members from local government and lobby groups. I asked them what is the strongest way to incite reaction/care/action from a public, and simply put their response reinforces every aspect of Williams' article. It is not enough to present facts to a public and expect them to be engaged. It takes clever framing of an issue to get a public involved.  

A good example of this is the Asylum seeker issue in Australia. Logically, one side is presenting facts and real information - trying to explain the reason people are getting on boats, explaining that international law says we have an obligation to help, trying to invoke empathy from the Australian people. This is what you would expect would win an argument, or convince the public.

It appears that we have entered the age of documenting without the documenter. 

The documentaries given to us to look at this week, for the most part, had a common thread through out - the feeling that the film maker was trying to remove themselves from the film to allow the audience to view and access the data without framing it for them. To fully encourage unfiltered engagement with the content to allow the view to navigate meaning for themselves.

I don't really know if the short interaction with this weeks films achieved that.

Take Bear 71 as an example. A. I couldn't access the actual interactive doco on my ancient computer, but B.seems to miss the point about not framing or passing on additional information to the viewer by having the bear speak. Watching the trailer with a very human voice over take on the "voice" of the bear attaches all these preconcieved human ideas about experience to the bear. It assumes bears are emotional, that they think about experience the same way humans do, that they can tell the story of their existence in a chronological narrative... which all could be true I suppose but it seems to undercut the desire for interactive, immersive documentary that removes the presence of the film maker and encourages us to simply watch and learn for ourselves. The viewer can choose what they want, but even from just watching that trailer they will be watching Bear 71 in a way that is directly influenced by the film maker. 

Leviathan was perhaps slightly better, but still - the shots that we watch are selected by the documenter and pieced together. There is no way to tell what effect the edit had on the actual reality of being on that boat. Perhaps if we combined the multi-camera interactive style of Bear 71 with the stream of consciousness style fillming of Leviathan, we would have something closer to a documentary entirely free of the makers influence?

Politics with a capital P - Jellis says - doesn't involve a lot of actual politics. The systems and processes that form part of our democratic process are the very reason that some changes aren't able to happen. The rigidity of our democratic process can constrict the potential for an innovative outcome. 

Flattening a hierachy and opening up problem solving to the people, encouraging collaboration and a network, rather than a representative, is one way to look at micropolitics. It aims to democratise the democratic process, bringing the problem solving back to the people. By focussing on commons and shared values, you can bring together a set of people to all work together toward the one goal, in a unique way.

This method is anti-authoritarian in a sense that there is no governing or overseeing body.  A flat hierachy sees everyones interests equal, and everyone as involved as the other - with equal opportunity to contribute to the solution.

The example used was bitcoin, that saw a new form of currency be created to moderate success. Bitcoin allows users to obtain and trade value, without being attached to any overaching financial body - no banks or governments monitor these transactions or determine the value. This is almost a grassroots type of currency, created by the people. 

A great example of Micropolitics are crowd funding platforms such as Pozzible, which focus on using the assets and energies of a wide range of individuals to achieve a common goal. This has allowed users to subvert the established processes, such as creating a movie, by allowing common people to fund their projects, rather than waiting for an authority in that area - such as a production company- backing their content and providing financial support, which means more niche products and services can be created. 

References

http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/what-is-p2p-an-introduction/2014/02/04

http://www.spacesofexperimentation.net/montreal/disorientation-and-micropolitics-a-response/

This weeks focus was on interaction, the way we negotiate reality and how the media allows us to experience different realities - the way media allows us to interact with different realities. 

Space and time is constantly being redefined in contemporary life due to technology.

This is a list of the ways I utilize media to augment my interaction with space and time:

- use my smart phone to interrupt my present reality, this actually sort of throws me back to last weeks discussion about the extended mind - relying on technology to fulfill the function of memory. 

- NSW Transport Ap, Tripview, allows me to view my location on a map. But it also allows me to track the bus I am waiting for's location. This interaction is not more temporal and far more present than traditional transport information flows. Using GPS technology I am able to receive up to date, by the second, information about where the bus is. 

This was all very meta, sitting around thinking about thinking, reading about media using different media... so things can get a little confusing. 

The reading set explored different ideas about the way humans brains work. Interestingly I didn't feel any one theory had it right. The Behaviorists only touch on the most basic human functions, our reactionary-automatic thinking. The auto-response to triggers in our immediate environment - it rains and  we feel wet - but is there a thought process in that? Does feeling cold translate into thinking we feel cold? The more I thought about Behaviorist theory the more inwards and on top of myself my thinking got. 

Trying to identify the differences between thinking and feeling and expecting and remembering and experiencing isn't easy. There are overlaps and cross overs.

There are extensions and blurred lines between consciousness and unconsciousness, self directed thinking and reactions to a trigger, where our mind stops and our tehcnology takes over is getting harder and harder to define.

Stiegler's writing on Anamnesis and Hypomnesis was particularly interesting. When thinking about the way I personally create or curate memories/knowledge/information I could relate to both of these ideas. Hypomnesis is something that after reading about I actually got a little scared of - I completely think that I, and much of my generation, have this reliance on technology in a way that is different to the ways we used technology as extensions of ourselves/ our brains, in the past.  I actively store less to memory because I know how easy it is to just "Google it." The way my iPhone has become such an extension of body, not only physically (really, my phone is never further than an arms distance away - and don't even mention the battery running out!) but also mentally, all of my contacts, access to the internet (GOOGLE) notes and dates to remember, for all of this I am completely reliant on technology. My brain seems to collect less and less concrete, reliable and most importantly consciously collected information each year. I am actually worried about what I will be like at 60...

REFERENCES:

Noë, Alva (2010) ‘Does thinking happen in the brain?’, 13:7 Cosmos and Culture <http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/12/10/131945848/does-thinking-happen-in-the-brain>

[online] ‘Behaviourism’, Wikipedia, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviourism>

[online] ‘The Extended Mind’, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Mind>

Media, society and culture and the relationship between these are constantly being examined. There is a constant battle about which came first and it is very easy to get caught up in an argument over whether technological determinism has any merit... or whether we are really the masters of our own destiny.

McLuhan’s ‘the medium is the message’ sparked much debate about our interactions with technology, specifically the ideas of technological determinism. Why do people use technology or how are they responding to technology (how does their daily life change in response to the introduction of a new technology) 

But what I think is really the key reason we study these three words, media, society and culture, together through so much of our degree is because the relationship between them is so volatile, society influences media, media influences culture, culture influences society - and so  on. There is a constant interaction. There is this constant power struggle - technology is not always dictating what we do or how we behave, but at the same time societal pressures are not constant either.  

I think every theory about media and societies interaction is destined to be flawed... because human being all posses agency, but humans are also constantly responding to an influence. 

This weeks readings looked at the ways in which the art world is embracing new media. Is this new art, really art? Can we view video games as art? 

I think like any other aspect of society, the art world will respond to the influx of digital technology. What I find interesting about the art worlds response to media is that like everyone else they are altering their practice in response to technology but because part of their practice is to comment or say something the technology they use ends up being a part of their audiences interpretation.

I found the 'The dogs de tour' work provided in this weeks course links really interesting and extremely funny. In this case I do think that generative art can be included as art. It could be taken as a hilarious comment on they way that geotagging and mapping on our mobile devices has taken over. To put a dog in that situation, almost mirroring the way humans use devices, creating a sort of humorous reflection of our own dependence and desire to document and pokes fun at it. The artist is sort of saying that the digital age has mad us all go barking mad. 

The idea of 'machines fitting into the human environment instead of forcing humans to fit into theirs' is really interesting and pondering whether ubiquitous computing, to this definition, actually exists is interesting.

The examples that I would have given when thinking about ubiquitous computing when looked at again aren't really complying to the above definition. 

Voice recognition technology, be it with a smart phone while you are driving and need directions or in smart home that has voice activated lights, doesn't actually mean the machine is fitting in with you. In actual fact when you consider the way you have to talk and alter your speech for Siri to understand what you are saying, it becomes kind of silly to think that the machine is actually making our lives easier, we are so obviously changing the way we say something or do something to use the technology. 

I think that the idea of ubiquitous computing and an internet of things is definitely on its way, heck even our shoes have computers in them now, but I don't think that everything is going smoothly just yet. 

Siri can find me a place to dump a body if I ask nicely clearly, but she/he still can't understand that I want to call my Aunty Jenny not my friend Jenny. I am still most definitely changing my behaviour to fit in with computes.

References:

 Anon. (n.d.) ‘Ubiquitous Computing’ Wikipedia < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing > (see also ambient intelligence and the internet of things if you’re interested)

Every aspect of human existence is being re-examined for change due to our new mediated world of web(2.. 3.. is it 6.0 yet?). The scientific community, like most others, has not been able to avoid the impact of technological advances on their work process. The reading that I found most interesting this week was Guardian's piece by Elizabeth Pisani on the push toward data sharing in the scientific community.

I like everyone else, was made to learn about the first real controversy surrounding data sharing in science, the race to code DNA where two scientists used the work of another to solve a problem (without her knowledge.) These days, data sharing has become a much more widely accepted and assumed part of the way we mediate our world. The flow and freedom of information is far more open. Pisani's article discussed the positive benefits of open science, of a free flow of research data that  is made accessible to the whole community, allowing others to build on or reinterpret the research and data of others. I, like Pisani, think this is an awesome and much needed step. To take the competition out of the science that surrounds health, and take it back to what is really important: alleviating illness/disease. By working together discoveries that may have taken years could be done in half the time and that is of great benefit to the community. 

The readings reminded me of an article I read a few years ago about a research team that had opened up their problem to the public and a 10 year old mystery was solved in less than 10 days. Gamers (so not even people who would normally be involved in the scientific process) were able to solve a small puzzle in the big piece that is an AIDS cure by using an online game, Foldit. This shows that discoveries can be made much quicker if the information is freely flowing and everyone, not just the scientific community, has access to that data. 

Reference:

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 >

In discussing the traits that make you a good journalist, transparency always comes up. When discussing what makes a good politician, trust is a word that always comes up. These two words are linked, transparency and a complete openness should create trust. Our government has for decades strived to gain and retain the publics trust. It seems like in 2013, the best way to do this is to hop on the openness bandwagon of the Facebook generation.

A transparency in government is a powerful tool for the public. But I think what is interesting it looking at the ways that a public has made a governments actions transparent, whether it be in Eygpyt or Turkey. When a government is suppressing a free flow of information about their actions they loose the trust of the public. To be honest, the Australian government's level of transparency suits me. It doesn't control what the media writes about them, question time is recorded, there are archives and online files that are easily accessible and the government is also on various online platforms so that they can communicate with the public. 

To be in government in this day and age is harder than ever, because the government in Australia is has embraced online platforms and the open flow of information, which whilst may make them more transparent than ever, makes them extremely vunerable... if the government doesn't respond to even a tweet, we can all see it. As pointed out in Against Transparency, if a person is receiving funding from an organisation and that is swaying his vote, we can all see it. And as soon as someone points it out social media and the network society will make sure that EVERYONE sees it. 

References:

Mason, Paul (2011) ‘Twenty reasons why it’s kicking off everywhere’, Idle Scrawls BBC, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/02/twenty_reasons_why_its_kicking.html >

Data is changing. It is no longer enough to equate data with facts or information. Data is drawn into our lives in a way that augments, reflects, distorts, manufactures and frames our reality. We rely on data as the FORM that information takes, the platform it's dispersed by and what it prompts us to consider. 

Data has infiltrated most aspects of our lives; we could argue that new data technologies are changing the way we conduct ourselves, but that would be slightly technological deterministic. Instead I think it is interesting to view the ways in which data has enhanced our lives and also consider the data technologies that we choose to successfully utilise. 

I think for me the most obvious example of a data technology that I use regularly to enhance my life is GoogleMaps on my iPhone. I have a terrible sense of direction and find myself regularly relying on my phone to direct me. So much am I caught up in this augmented reality of the map on my phone, I seem to switch of my engagement with ACTUAL data that surrounds me, i.e. I will walk along looking at my phone and not read the streetsigns. 

Also I find it interesting the way new technologies are engaging with the data we produce ourselves, and then using this data to engage us in advertisers products. Cough. Google. Cough. I don't know how I feel about the ownership of my own personal data, whether I like having adverts tailors to my tastes or if I feel like this is a bit of an infringement on my privacy.

The experience of reality is changing. Whilst we have already got a fairly solid grasp on interacting with one another, or even complete strangers/fictitious characters in a virtual reality; the recent Google Glass technology has brought the concept of an augmented reality to the actuality. 

The virtual reality experience is removed from the everyday; you immerse yourself in an alternate world and whilst you can interact with friends or people who you normally would interact with, the experience is removed from the normal quotidian expected experience. The difference between virutal and augmented realities is this: a virtual reality uses technology to immerse the individual in the foreign whereas augmented realities use technology to enhance the experience of the present. 

I am interested in the ways in which current technologies which I use are altering my experience of my own reality. If i walk around with my iPhone in my bag/pocket/hand I am constantly connected to certain networks which don't really physically exist anywhere else but when I log in on my phone/computer. Whilst it is not completely immersive and rejecting of reality, Twitter allows me to interact with people virtually; the conversation I am having could not happen without the technology. It could be interpetted as a virtual reality as I am interacting with people who aren't actually in my reality; our relationship exist in a virtual online space.

However after being introduced to the concept of augemented realities, I wonder if any of these concepts can relate to Twitter. I firstly think of the way Twitter changes my viewing experience of television programs. It has the capacity to heighten my experience of an event, because I can become involved in a conversation with other people, access data simultaneously as I view a program on the television. Whilst this isn't as convenient as Googleglass (i still have to use two different technologies at the same time) It is interesting to think about the ways Twitter could augment the reality of say Q & A. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality

http://mashable.com/2012/12/19/augmented-reality-city/

The aspect of this weeks lecture that most struck me was the idea that humans have always feared or worried about the externalization of thought. Comparing the rise of the internet to the ancient greeks adversion to writing things down, as a form of tainting data, dirtying pure human thought, was particularly interesting. 

The ideas raised in the first few paragraphs of Anamnesis and Hypomnesis were an interesting extension of this idea, of communication or data storage/networks that are used by humans to trigger internal data networks, whether that be writing down a note on scrap of paper or using an iPhone Ap to catch a bus. 

The EMT as proposed by Clark and Chalmers outlines these ideas, of human thought and brain processing not being limited to bodily confines of the physical place (the brain) where the seed of thought was first concieved; of the utilisation of tehcnology and external environments, be they media ecologies or physical space, to further thought and aid memory and data retention.

‘It makes increasingly less sense even to talk about a publishing industry, because the core problem publishing solves—the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public—has stopped being a problem.’ (Clay Shirky, ‘Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable’, http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/). Are digital and networked media dismantling the “publishing industry”? Is it being replaced? If so, what is replacing it? If not, what is the publishing industry becoming, and how is it doing so? Are there new difficulties and complexities or expenses involved?

  Clay Shirky questions whether the publishing industry still exists in his article ‘Newspapers and thinking the unthinkable.’ He argues that because the newspaper industry has struggled to make the transition from print to more contemporary platforms of publishing, such as digital or networked media, the publishing industry as we know it has ceased to exist, and new forms of self-publication are taking over. (Shirky, 2009)

  Publishing is currently in a state of transition. By observing changes that take place during this transition it is possible to determine whether traditional forms of media are being completely dismantled and replaced, or whether networked and digital media are cementing the importance of a publishing industry within contemporary society.

  In the recent times the incorporation of new technology into our every day routines seems to have been increasing exponentially. There is a seemingly endless flow of new ways to aggregate and distribute which are constantly flooding the public. As always, when new technologies are introduced into society, we adapt and our ritualistic sense of process, authority and behavior changes. New technology often flows on to have an impact in most aspects of our lives and one such aspect is the way we create, consume and connect with information. The publishing industry has had to choose whether to integrate or ignore many different innovations; over the past twenty years this has become particularly prevalent due to the rise of the internet and it’s capacity to shape our interaction with content.

  The publishing industry, in a traditional sense, has struggled to adapt to the possibilities of Web 2.0 and now Web 3.0. The failing of more traditional forms of media in terms of a move to digital and network media does not mean that the publishing industry is now defunct. I propose that instead this shift in the publishing process, particularly removing traditional barriers, has given birth to publishing 2.0. It is not that the publishing industry has become an irrelevant, archaic pursuit but that it has evolved in such an extreme way that it seems difficult to compare modern examples of publishing to the traditional; in fact, not that much has changed.

  What is the publishing industry?

  To publish is to make data public. A publisher is someone who distributes content to a population through a specific medium. The publishing industry is the collation of individuals and corporations that act as a publisher; they are responsible for the dissemination of original content, which traditionally was not produced by them. (Wikipedia 201) (Selfgrowth 2012) The publishing industry has changed due to the fact the role or need for a publisher has changed; the definition of ‘publish’ remains solid).

  Then

  Traditionally a publisher was necessary part of the publication process. The individual artist or author rarely distributed books, journals, records and movies. (Wikipedia, 2012) This role was given to accredited authoritative publishers such as Random House or News Ltd. The traditional process of applying to have work published is difficult and often artists or authors are unsuccessful.

  Now

  The internet has enabled anyone with access to a computer to become a publisher, whether it is his or her own work or someone else’s. The ‘prod-user’ is also an interesting phenomenon to explore when looking at modern publishers. Commonly users of the internet are not only consuming content produced by their peers, they are at the same time creating their own original content OR sometimes building on or editing exist content. (Snurb, 2007) This ability for anyone to distribute and personalize content removes the need for a middleman, an occupation traditionally assumed by publishing companies. To an extent they still exist, but instead of the middleman being a publishing house they are now the creators of social media sites, i.e. Facebook aggregates original content and allows users to both contribute and consume to the flow of data displayed on their home page. Facebook and Twitter are interesting because they allow users to personalize many aspects of their content, from news updates to friend requests. It epitomizes the environment Snurb describes as a prod-user community in Prod-usage: A working definition. Snurb defines this new publishing environment as:

  “A networked, participatory environment which breaks down the boundaries between producers and consumers and instead enables all participants to be users as well as producers of information and knowledge.” -Snurb (2007)

  The traditional publishing industry, that is the people who are responsible for the production and dissemination of print and broadcast media, is certainly being challenged and dismantled. A new publishing industry, of bloggers, tweeters, e-book distributors and a prod-user community has taken over. Right now I am publishing my ideas through a digital platform so that they can be accessed by anyone with the internet. I am a prod-user and I am part of the publishing industry, Tumblr is the equivalent of my publishing house; unlike Random House they just haven’t employed anyone to specifically handle the publication of my information, they have instead left that up to me.

  So what’s changed?

  Attention Spans

  An interesting byproduct of the change in the publishing industry from being Publishing Company or Broadcast based to a digital, networked medium based publishing system is the toll this abundance of published work has on our attention spans. Infotension, as Howard Rheingold says in his article ‘Mindful Infotension: Dashboards, Radars, Filters, has become an important skill for individuals to possess. For any Google Search the first 100 results can be immediately displayed on our screen. (Wikipedia, 2012) The mind has to be trained to pay attention to correct types of information as all too often our desire for the intellectual equivalent of sugar. i.e. humour, novelty, overly stimulating material, overrides our ‘crap detection’ abilities. (Temple 2011) (Rheingold, 2009) Rheingold also raises the idea of Twitter Literacies, and the way we have to learn how to best use these networked, media platforms. (Rheingold) Professionals who would once be responsible for being the middleman and distributing information for and about an artist have had to become fully functional users of most social media sites.

  Due to the changes in the publishing industry and societies embracement of digital and network mediums has encouraged multitasking. Many people can now purchase music, once only published physically on a disc or tape, from an online distributor of the digital file, such as iTunes. These distributors have to compete with the fact that you have 20 other tabs open when you are using your computer and as a result try to make the experience of purchasing music on iTunes engaging (the preview function, flicking images of artists) and exciting as all the other windows on your screen, in order to earn your attention.

  Privacy

  The idea of Commons is particularly relevant to the modern platforms of publishing. A common is something that is ‘owned’ or accessible to everyone. (Schlecht, 2011) The commons in the internet age have changed from being books published and put in a town library, to the internet, which provides information on everything and for the majority of it there is a way to get it for free. Wikileaks challenges preconceived boundaries of publishing and what information should be freely available to the public. Wikileaks publishes previously confidential documents that it feels should be made public, such as US Military files on Afghanistan. (Wikileaks, 2012) This is only a possibly due to the open nature of the contemporary publishing industry, the internet is a new platform that is able to aggregate and distribute simultaneously, and it’s reach is unrivaled. Contemporary publishes takes the power away from the corporations and publishing houses, who can be influenced by governments or other authoritative figureheads, and gives it back to the individual. We have less privacy than ever before. If each internet user was to read every privacy policy they use in a year it would take 75 days. (Madrigal 2012)This reflects the constant struggle the digital, networked media has between allowing users the absolute freedom of information and protecting their privacy.

  eReaders

  John Naughton documents the traditional experience of reading in his article Publishers take note: the iPad is altering the very concept of a 'book.’ This experience has been significantly altered due to digital media forcing the publishing industry to evolve and produce new ways of reading. In an attempt to counteract the drop in popularity of books or newspapers publishing companies have introduced eReaders or Ap’s that can be used on these devices.

  An eReader is an electronic table use to read documents, books, newspapers etc. It is an example of the traditional publishing industry acknowledging the problems it faces and trying to rectify them. Recent technological advances have changed the publishing industry irreversibly and publishers/distributors that are reacting to and incorporating these changes in their business have the best chance of survival in the new world of Web3.0. The eReader appeals to a generation of Facebook users as it allows you to personalize content, for example font size or subscribe to certain newspapers; it allows you to purchase and read books instantaneously without leaving your house and it incorporates a multitude of immersive and interactive elements, such as links to video or the ability to annotate and share notes on the book with friends. (Wortham, 2010) These elements of the eReader allow publishers to still function in a similar way to the traditional, as they are responsible for the distribution of content. By creating a new platform to do this through, and incorporating elements of digital, networked media, the publishing industry has a good chance at sustaining some of its tradional publisher roles. An example of this is discussed in Naughton’s article on Amazon, ‘The original Big Brother is watching you on Amazon Kindle.’ This article raises one of the problems society incurs when faced with this new form of reading, that the distributors of paid content have the capacity to restrict your access to said content, which raises the question of whether anyone can ever truly own digital media content.

  So is the publishing industry dead?

  In my opinion, no it is not. Certainly it has changed considerably in the past decade; newspapers have become completely digitized and we post our personal diaries on Tumblr. To say that the publishing industry is defunct purely because making information public is no longer a difficult thing is a short sighted view of what the publishing industry is. The publishing industry is no longer restricted to large corporations and professionals; the everyday citizen is constantly acting as a prod-user, the newest form of publisher. The publishing industry has altered from its traditional role, to print and broadcast information in order for it to be accessed by the public, to include digital and network media. These new mediums come with their own publishing issues, such as regulation, making a profit, privacy and the impact the ease of abundance of publishing has on our attention spans. Information will always be exchanged and thus the publishing industry will always exist, it will just rely on creating platforms of publishing rather than aggregating and distributing. The industry now is more diverse and inclusive than ever.

      List of References

  Rheingold, H (2009) accessed 7th June 2012 <http://blog.sfgate.com/rheingold/2009/05/11/twitter-literacy-i-refuse-to-make-up-a-twittery-name-for-it/>

  Rheingold, H (2009) accessed 7th June 2012 http://blog.sfgate.com/rheingold/2009/09/01/mindful-infotention-dashboards-radars-filters/

  Wikipedia (2012) Google Search, accessed 7th June 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search#Search_results

  Schlecht, D (2011) What are the commons and why should be protect them? Accessed 7th June 2012 <http://www.just-say-why.com/blog/index.php/2011/06/06/what-are-the-commons-and-why-should-we-protect-them/>

  Wikileaks, accessed 7th June  2012 <http://wikileaks.org/About.html>

  Madrigal, A (2012) Reading the privacy policies you encounter in one year would take 76 day, accessed 7th June 2012 < http://finance.yahoo.com/news/reading-privacy-policies-encounter-76-192505175.html >

  Snurb, (2007) Produsage: A working definition. Accessed 7th June 2012 http://produsage.org/produsage

    Wikipedia (2012) Publishing, accesed 7th June 2012 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishing#Privishing>

  Naughton, J (2009) The original Big Brother is watching you on Amazon Kindle, accessed on 7th June 2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/26/amazon-kindle-book-deletions>

  Wortham, J (2010) Social Books Hopes to make eReading communal, accessed 7th June 2012 <http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/social-books-hopes-to-make-e-reading-communal/>

  Naughton, J (2010) Publishers take note: the iPad is altering the very concept of the book, accessed on 7th June 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/dec/19/ipad-publishing-kindle-books-apple

  Shirky, S (2009) “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable’, accessed 7th June 2012 <http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/>

  Web Finance, Inc (2012) accessed 7th June 2012

 <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/publisher.html>

On his website, which explores this different ideas in his book Making is Connecting, David Gauntlett discusses the need for humans to be active users of media and that the act of creating and sharing is essential to the growth and continuation of society. In his brief youtube video summarising his book he says that creating to form connections is "essential to society", that people must "get the opportunity to make and share things rather than just be consumers". 

He talks about the various examples of historic creativity that acted as a form of self expression, aiding the development of today's society. He compared the embroidery from the 18th century to blogging today, and gargoyles to Youtube. Gauntlett says that creativity is for the sake of creativity is important for three main reasons:

1. Pleasure and reflection.

2. To feel alive, that you are an active participant in the world.

3. To gain recognition from society.