#com112

Social media gives voice to those who, without its presence, would not normally be heard. Minorities, activists and those who would actively be silenced by the status quo finally have a platform in which to generate presence, discuss ideas and set about changing the world for the better. It’s interesting, however, when you consider the other side of this: those who are in the status quo and use these same social media platforms for the same reasons - using their collective voices to add to the silencing power of those who are already powerful.

There is veil of protection the denizens of the internet enjoy. The nature of profiles, being that they can resemble nothing of their owner, ends up being a front to take the criticisms in response to what someone says, while the creator enjoys a persecution-free lifestyle away from the consequences of their words. Why are social media platforms so slow to respond to this? It’s been decades and still people are allowed to deceive and bully and smother anyone who they take aim at, without any repercussions because “it’s just too hard to hold them accountable”. 

When people begin talking about policies on hate speech and censorship laws the concept of “freedom of speech” always surfaces, and always comes from the side trying to argue for silence and oppression. The Freedom of Speech Act is simply a law pertaining to a governments obligation to not be able to imprison or otherwise vilify those based on what they say - this does not at all relate to policies companies like Facebook, Twitter or Instagram have the ability to put in to place.

Not everyone deserves the same platform. People need to understand that what they’re saying has more influence than they initially believe. This widespread apathy and misunderstanding that social media is superfluous and mundane is harmful to society, and things said without understanding or thought to their consequence has created many echo chambers in which people back up each others wild misunderstandings about the world. Poisonous words only serve to create more toxicity, even if it brings no immediate consequences. Companies need to take charge and moderate what kind of content they are publicly endorsing.

Mr Zuckerberg, if you allow hate speech to go on unimpeded on your platform, then you are supporting that same rhetoric. Mr Dorsey, if you’re allowing a precedent to be set to let people shamelessly bully people based on race and gender, then you are the same type of bigot. Mr Systrom, if you’re letting neo nazi’s and conspiracy theorists keep their pedestal, then maybe you have more in common with them than you would care to believe.

Will the future ahead of us turn us into super humans, or give us robot best f ( r ) iends?

This idea isn’t just a simple Sci-Fi plot. It could be a reality. With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the development of bionics, robotic prosthetics and enhancements, electric cars and the advancement of self-driving cars - something like Futurama isn’t far off the truth.

I watched a news program (which I’ve embedded below) about a New Zealand tech company that developed an exo-skeleton which gives disabled people and wheelchair bound people the ability to walk again. 

As well as this, I also found a short video about Harvard University developing a bionic soft suit to help the military and the elderly walk and move around, while giving the ability to prevent serious injury.

It seems like a call back to Darwin’s theory on evolution, except instead of naturally evolving, we are forcing that trajectory into our own interests, needs (whether medical or not), and sense of convenience. There are many stories about bionic prosthetics out performing the original limbs of amputees. There is even a man in Sydney who installed an Opal travelling chip into his hand to make transporting around Sydney easier. (Dole, 2017) 

With the benefit of extreme improvements to our human lives, there is always going to be extreme risks.

The late Stephen Hawking famously quoted that Artificial Intelligence could “spell the end of the human race.” Bill Gates and Elon Musk share similar opinions. Musk compared the idea of AI to the dictatorship of North Korea, if used without caution. Gates expressed that the good can outweigh the bad if managed properly. (Marr, 2018)

According to Hawking, he believed in the possibility that machines could “take off” on their own will. That once their AI develops enough they would find the ability to think for themselves, modify themselves and update their systems. In comparison to the slow biological sense of evolution in the human race, we would fall behind while our creation begins to dominate and take over. (Marr, 2018)

Our AI robots (or would they be considered creatures if they can evolve themselves?) might see themselves as the superior being and enslave the human race and history might repeat itself. 

Perhaps we should take a page from Mary Shelley’s gothic horror novel Frankenstein and proceed with extreme caution, as this pivotal moment in science can cause so much destruction. 

Sources:

Marr, B. (2018) Is Artificial Intelligence Dangerous? 6 AI Risks Everyone Should Know About. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/11/19/is-artificial-intelligence-dangerous-6-ai-risks-everyone-should-know-about/#5db0e0222404

Rutschman, A.S. (2018) Stephen Hawking warned about the perils of artificial intelligence – yet AI gave him a voice. The Conversation. Retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/stephen-hawking-warned-about-the-perils-of-artificial-intelligence-yet-ai-gave-him-a-voice-93416

Week 6: Digital ethics: data tracking and surveillance

I tracked my phone usage through an app already integrated on my iPhone this week to see just how much I was using my phone, and I was kind of shocked that I spent a day and a half of my week just looking at my phone. From there I was able to find statistics on what apps I frequently use, and my phone automatically averaged everything out into a total for me. 

This infographic I made only scratches the surface of my internet activity. 

After reading Chen’s article about data tracking and Google analytics, I went through all of my Google apps and found tracking information saved on my phone for my most frequent destinations offline as well as online. 

So I didn’t know this until two days ago, but Google Maps saves the routes you go and averages out your most frequent stops. For privacy reasons I won’t be posting the map, but it knows what shopping centre I prefer, where I work, where I live, and where I walk my dog. If Google were a person, this would probably be considered stalking.

Is our sense of safety being compromised by data logging and tracking? I understand the idea is that this information should not be accessible to anybody but us, but there have been serious breaches of our privacy through the years.

There was the major leak of celebrity nude photos from a hacker accessing hundreds of iCloud accounts in 2016. In 2018 the security of 50 million Facebook profiles were breached. Lately there’s been news that the privacy of Apple’s FaceTime app is bugged, as you can hear and see the person you are calling before they answer. 

Source:

Chen, B. (2018). Google's file on me was huge. Here's why it wasn't as creepy as my Facebook data. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/technology/personaltech/google-personal-data-facebook.html

BBC Newsbeat. (2016, March 16). Meet the man behind the leak of celebrity nude photos, called the fappening. Retrieved from BBC Newsbeat: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35820521/meet-the-man-behind-the-leak-of-celebrity-nude-photos-called-the-fappening

This video timelapse is a little something I doodled a few weeks ago specifically for the assignment. 

Selfies are limited by the length of your arm (unless you have a selfie stick), so they will automatically look distorted. You’re limited by the crop so it does take some effort to make them look good.

My timelapse illustration symbolises the movements, changes and differences from that first shot to the last one that you’re happy with. I started with an extremely rough sketch that I kept changing and adjusting until I was happy with how it was presented.

To add another layer to this, none of my final selfies ever look exactly like me, just like how my timelapse illustration does not look like the photo I referenced it from. What does this say about me, though? Does it reflect my personality? Or have I inadvertently formed a new online identity? 

Personally, I think it’s hard to tell if any of my selfies reflect my true personality. In this photo I think I look a bit bubbly and energetic - and although most of the time I try to act bubbly at work or at uni, I prefer to be in solitude reading or playing the Playstation. 

My hair is short, hot pink, and held back by a headband. On top of that I’m wearing navy and white stripes. Stereotypical artist? Maybe. When I think of artists I think of stripes. And when people ask me what I’m studying they’re usually not surprised that it’s something in the design field. 

If I were to pretend that the reindeer filter wasn’t there, I’d say that the girl in the photo is confident and fun-loving, a real go-getter. But there is a filter and I’m far from being a confident person. Most of the selfies I take, I’m only happy with them if there’s a filter. Why? I’m not sure. All I see are my flaws that I want to hide from the world, and I know that it’s ridiculous and that I’m probably the only person tearing me to pieces over a photo. 

We congratulate people when they proudly refuse to use filters because they’re brave enough to face the world, flaws and all, and not care what anyone thinks. I’m not there just yet, but hopefully one day I will be.

In a way I think this selfie does represent some aspects of my personality. I am a designer, I love pink and pastel colours, most of my wardrobe consists of high waisted pants and stripes, and I do like getting into holiday spirits.

But I also love having lots of ‘me-time’. I’m not an extrovert and I would rather read a book than go out, most of the time. I’m reserved, quiet, shy and often put my foot in my mouth. That’s the me hiding in this representation of my online identity. 

Online I’m totally different. I’m social, I like sharing and making memes and I’m probably a bit funnier online than I am offline. I think I’m a lot more articulate in my thoughts online because I have time to stop, think and breathe. It prevents me from getting worked up or too anxious and getting flustered. 

I put all the good aspects of my personality through a filter when I’m online - and use the internet to mask all the aspects I don’t like about myself. I represent the person I want to be, but not the person I am. So in a sense, that becomes my personality. I’m pretending to be a different version of myself - a ‘better’ me. 

In my timelapse illustration, that is what I aimed to represent. I started off with the outlines of a messy, unattractive looking drawing. I kept adding to it and removing undesirable bits and pieces, excess lines. I changed the shape of my jaw a few times, and the shape of my eyes in the drawing. No one ever sees that process in drawing - they only ever see the final, completed piece that the artist is happy with. 

Reading:

Remix and Licensing

“Everything is a remix” or so Ferguson (20120) says, but is the concept of remixing avoidable in today’s society? When everything has been thought of before, can anything really ever be truly original?

To discuss the themes from this topic, I created an audiovisual presentation which addresses; remix and licensing in different media forms, copyright and compares some examples as well.

To see my original thoughts and reflections on the topic follow this link;

The Internet is for...?

Technology has come a long way since the creation of what is now known as the web/internet. The advancements in technology now allow us to interact with one another in ways we never dreamed possible. However, it must be taken into consideration, what we gained and what have we lost as a result?

To expand on my learnings and reflections from week 1 - conceiving the net, I created an audio discussion that addresses some of the ideas I came up with in my original textual post.

To see my original thoughts on the topic follow this link;

“How has convergence and disruption changed the media and arts content consumption in Australia? Who benefits? Who does not? How has the Australian government influenced the outcome?”

Netflix was the underdog of the mainstream media market. It was overlooked and provided a tailored service to a niche market. Blockbuster didn't care as it never cut into their profits and underestimated the movement that Netflix would begin. 

Netflix started by being a subscription service that mailed DVDs to their customers. They weren't the latest movies and many were pretty niche. The 'how' as to why they became successful is because Blockbuster was too set in its ways to evolve fast enough.

As the saying goes 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' - which some form of that would have been the Block Busters' idea. Netflix didn't settle for their position in the market and they moved upmarket by finding a way to make their service more convenient at a high quality. This is turn makes the product more attractive to consumers and disrupts the established businesses as they are able to meet the needs of arguably all of their customers. Because of this, Blockbuster lost its foothold in mainstream media, and that's when Netflix became a giant.

Because of Netflix's new throne on mainstream media, 68% of Australians as of 2017 use a streaming service, compared to the 37% during 2014. The trends are growing as it's becoming more and more accessible to anybody to watch whatever they want on demand. 

When I was a teen, every Friday night my family would microwave some popcorn and have a movie night from hired DVDs we got at Blockbuster. But now that weekly tradition can become a daily habit because of how easy and affordable it is to do it now, thanks to streaming services. Netflix has its benefits, but the downside is that it also encourages binge watching, which can encourage a sedentary lifestyle.

And you can't watch a movie without popcorn or chips - so that can lead into over eating, or eating more calories than what you're burning off. That leads to weight gain. The Government encourages the use of streaming services as it has dramatically reduced internet piracy. In 2017 17% of Australians reported to use illegal pirating methods to watch movies, compared to 2014 when it was 43%.

Sources:

Itonics. (2018, September 11). Why Uber isn’t disruptive but Netflix is - Disruptive Innovation explained. Retrieved from Medium: https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/why-uber-isnt-disruptive-but-netflix-is-disruptive-innovation-explained-198d250f4db0