Rogue Phoenix Argues...

In the final chapter of Spreadable Media (Jenkins et al., 2013), Jenkins goes into detail about transnational media and its spreadability in terms of mass and niche content. According to Global Media Journal, transnational media is described as communication, information or entertainment that crosses international borders without the regulatory constrains normally associated with electronic media.

An example of transnational media is the company BuzzFeed (I didn’t want to use this example but my other examples were American as well). BuzzFeed was founded in 2006 and had quickly gained national and global popularity. It’s headquarters is located in New York, NY but the company has 15 offices in 11 countries including but not limited to Japan, Mexico and India.

BuzzFeed has gained trust as a news source, recipe site, entertainment hub and much more. Its bread and butter is with the various videos that are output by its employees featuring pop cultural phenomena. BuzzFeed content is output by its various channels. Each channel has a target audience that benefits from the specific material published.

For example, BuzzFeed’s channel Pero Like focuses on video content tailored to the Latinx community. However, that’s not to say other communities can’t also enjoy the material.

First of all, I want to commend Lessig for his book, Remix. Unlike previous books that I read - namely Networked (Rainey & Wellman) - Remix keeps rhetoric to layman's terms. This ensures the reader (me) doesn’t get lost in the technical jargon that I often have to pause to Google.

The part I most enjoyed (and woke up for) was in Part I when Lessig talked about the ‘The Significance of Remix’. Not only am I a consumer of various modified and remixed subjects, I too produce my own remixed versions of content. The strong emphasis on Community and Education (which aren’t the only positive outcomes of maintaining the remix culture) resonated with me and reminded me of two Youtube videos that I’ve watched multiple times. The first is a mashup of a song from a very popular anime and a popular American cartoon. The second is from the aforementioned anime overlayed with Remember The Name by Fort Minor.

On a separate note, I recall (and someone can correct me if I’m incorrect) Lanier (You Are Not A Gadget) denouncing remix culture. He seemed to be very against it because it didn’t promote creativity (his belief, not mine). I wonder if he watches these videos and if he does, why does he continue to maintain his belief that remixing isn’t creative?

Jaron Lanier, a jack of all trades, is the author of You are not a Gadget. In this written brainwork, Lanier introduces his thoughts on the cultural and technical issues dealing with computers, social media and the ‘hive mind’ that has risen.

The implications that he provides are that of a well informed and clairvoyant man who’s seen the possible paths of the future and has an inkling of where humans might be going - if we aren’t careful. Along with Rainie and Wellman (Networked), Lanier does acknowledge the benefits of the collective very briefly. However, contrary to Rainie and Wellman, he discusses how the quantity (Rainie and Wellman would call it the many networks) could also be detrimental to the economy, creativity (especially in the unlucky many) and to the individual. He specifies that quantity might be helpful but it is not always accurate in producing quality - no matter how large the quantity is.

Lanier also talks about our “locked in” society. We are so easily comfortable with what has always been. We never question it. “This is the way it’s always been. Why change it now?” This line of thinking is what Lanier calls “locked in” and he explains is damaging to our progression. If we never question what is, how can we move into what could be? Having read You are not a Gadget, I agree with Lanier. This complacent thought process is nothing but a hinderance. Unless the objective is to protect, then we should question why things are more often. We should look to continue and create/invent/innovate more. And never stop.

Another thought that Lanier shares - and that I share with him - is that humans need to give themselves more credit. I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen/heard/read anyone else talk about this, but humans have a ridiculous tendency to be humble at the worst times. In this context, humans humble themselves before computers and digital devices. In the prime example of Deep Blue v. Kasparov, Kasparov was the best chess player in the world. He was dethroned by the IBM-engineered supercomputer, Deep Blue, in 1997. In talks about the success of the several chess matches, a lot of credit was given to the supercomputer, saying how smart the computer was. NO! The computer did what it was told. Moreover, because the computer is less than human, it doesn’t have emotions. It won’t second guess itself and talk itself out of playing a certain way. It goes by 0s and 1s - that is all. If it had any human emotions, the poor block of bolts would have lost like everyone else - like Kasparov did.

She sat sipping a cup of hot chocolate with a grim look on her face. I hadn’t seen her like this in a while and knew that something serious must have happened for her to look so tired. I sat across from her, holding my own cup.

“I haven’t seen you in a while. How are things?” I knew how things were - not good.

She looked up at me. There were bags under her eyes but she smiled nonetheless. “I’m fine.” She was not fine. “How are you?”

“I’m doing well.”

There was a pause. And then she sighed. “That’s good.”

There was another pause.

“I saw what your sister posted. Is she okay?”

She looked up at me and smiled harder. It was a bittersweet smile. “Yeah... she’s doing fine.”

Her sister had written a suicide note one late January night - and posted it on Snapchat. According to her, her younger sister didn’t think anyone would care so she posted it with every intention of offing herself that night. Contrary to her sister’s beliefs, friends of her sister had seen the post and were shocked. One friend called her parents and herself, which moved her to action to catch her sister because she could do any harm. More friends ended up telling their respective parents, and then their parents told the principal of the school and then the principal called the police and then the police came to their house. Almost a week had passed since the incident.

“So what’s your sister doing now?”

“She’s in the hospital. We’ve got a hold of her phone and are going through her room to make sure there isn’t anything she can hurt herself with once she gets back.”

Another pause.

“How are your parents doing? What do they think about all of this?”

“They’re both fine now. Mom keeps telling me how grateful she is that I was there because she doesn’t know how to navigate phones very well and would never have been able to figure out what my sister had done.” She took a small sip of her hot chocolate. “It’s kind of a double edged sword”

With the evolution of the internet, social networking gives those who feel they don’t have a presence - or don’t know they have a presence - a place to belong. More than that, information is available to a user at the blink of an eye.

               Games are a simple and pleasurable aspect of life that we all enjoy. There isn’t a single person alive who doesn’t enjoy a good game. For clarity, the word “game” is not exclusive to only video games or computer games. The word “game” encompasses anything that has rules, a goal, requires voluntary participation and a feedback system. It’s debatable that games are a necessary feature of life. In Reality Is Broken, Jane McGonigal (the author) maintains that games are an essential part of living, and one that helps maintain our sanity and fuel general happiness. She says games are more than just a way to pass the time; that games can teach us skills that are applicable in real life. Ostensibly, life (not the board game) is perhaps the biggest game we play.

               Life has rules. Most of life’s rules are implemented and enforced by other “players” who play the same game. However, there are some foundational rules that players understand without needing an explanation. One of those understood rules is that you only get one life. Another rule is that eventually your respective game will come to a close – and no one knows when their respective “ends” will occur.

               Life also has an overarching goal and multiple goals within it. The main goal of life is to live it, live it well and find happiness within the life made. This part of the game is more intrapersonal due to each player’s individual reward system that earns them their happiness. This reward system is based on four criteria: (1) satisfaction, (2) likelihood of success, (3) social connection, and (4) meaning. These criteria make for an ideal game and hence, easier access to happiness.

               Life requires participation. Participation can come in the form of active involvement or passive involvement. Debatably, life can only truly be lived actively. Active involvement does not guarantee that a player will “win the game”, however, it can make playing the “meta games” more enjoyable. The meta games are the subgames, or side quests, within the predominant game of life. Inside the realm of our participation, we can quit life at any point. We would, therefore, no longer be players in the game.

               Lastly, life has a feedback system. Life’s feedback largely comes in the form of consequences to positive and negative actions. Positive actions are rewarded with encouragement. Negative actions are combated with admonishments. This feedback system of checks and balances holds the player directly responsible for the outcome of their gameplay.