The scariest idea of big data is predictive analysis “a commonplace and affects everyone, every day. It impacts your experiences in undetectable ways as you drive, shop, study, vote, see the doctor, communicate, watch TV, earn, borrow, or even steal” (Siegel, 2013). Through running this data through sophisticated algorithms organisations are able to use this information to “predict how you will respond to various marketing offers” (Weisbaum, 2014). I often purchase clothes online, just the other day I was looking at a dress on The Iconic online store now it keeps popping up in advertisements all over my browser. I probably wouldn’t of thought twice about the dress but now I want to buy it, because I have constant reminders of how much I like it.

  Through my research for this blog post I came across a YouTube video where photographer Rick Smolan discusses what big data says about you and what this information is used for. He used an example of how the Gates Foundation is working to eradicate Polio in Nigeria, through the use of satellites and GPS they located villages that no body knew existed. Through the use of new media technologies and big data “the Gates Foundation has helped implement a satellite mapping technique, to ensure house-to-house vaccinators use aren’t missing any villages or settlements” (Fox, 2013). How can we not be impressed with what big data can achieve when we hear things like that?

I'd love to hear everyone's opinions on big data, what do you think should we be excited or afraid?

References

Fox, Zoe. 2013. “Bill Gates: Satellites and GPS Are Fighting Polio.” Mashable, April 25. Accessed May 10, 2014. http://mashable.com/2013/04/24/bill-gates-vaccines-interview/

Funk-e Studios. 2013. “What is Big Data and how does it work?” YouTube video, posted November 12, 2013. Accessed May 10, 2014. http://youtu.be/TzxmjbL-i4Y 

Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction: The Prediction Effect.” In Predictive analytics: the power to predict who will click, buy, lie or die, 1 – 16. Hoboken: Wiley Publishing. Accessed https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

THNKR. 2013. “What Big Data Says About You.” YouTube video, posted April 12. Accessed May 10, 2014. http://youtu.be/fc1zBNC9wNY

Uganec, Cameron. 2013. “Social Media, Big Data and Visualization.” Hootsuite n.d. Accessed May 10, 2014. http://blog.hootsuite.com/social-media-big-data/

Webopedia. 2014. “big data.” Accessed May 10, 2014. http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/big_data.html

CMC is not as personalised as basic face-to-face interaction, and can be a disadvantage in the decoding stage of a message. Given the importance of “nonverbal cues in coordinating interaction and conveying meaning. Especially emotional meaning, it makes sense that people question whether mediated communication can successfully serve social functions” (Baym 2010, 5). It goes with this idea that actions speak louder than words, how can we fully understand the message if we are unable to read the social cues and the non-verbal communication of the person we are interacting with. With the immediacy and ease of the online world it has become easier for us to avoid personalised interactions.

Last night I watched “Her” a film about a writer who “ becomes intrigued with a new, advanced operating system, which promises to be an intuitive entity in its own right, individual to each user” (Warner Bros. Entertainment 2013), they immediately begin to develop a friendship which turns to an eventual love for each other. I found this film challenged my idea of intimacy in the modern mediated world; it was really interesting to see a world in which human face-to-face interaction and online interaction converged and somehow became equal.

New communicative tools have allowed us to make online interaction more personalised we are continually breaking down these barriers between CMC and face-to-face communication. We now use emoticons to display our emotions, social media to share how we are feeling and webcams that enable us to interact similarly to how we would in person. According to Baym (2010, 57) we “use new media for interpersonal purposes and to come up with creative ways to work around barriers, rather than submitting ourselves to a context- and emotion-free communication experience.”

Users of web 2.0 continually challenge Computer Mediated Communication and its limitations. We are evolving into a world where CMC is the norm; we need to move with these technological advances to ensure we don’t get left behind. It really is up to the individual in the way they use it as to whether it becomes an advantage or a disadvantage to our way of communicating.

  References

Baym. Nancy. 2010. “Chapter 3: Communication in Digital Spaces” In Personal connections in the digital age, 50 – 71. Cambridge: Polity Press. Accessed April 13, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au 

JoBlow Movie Trailers. 2013. “Her – Official Trailer (HD) Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams.” YouTube video, posted August 7. Accessed April 13, 2014. http://youtu.be/WzV6mXIOVl4

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 Internet, Self and Beyond: Week 6 lecture notes.” Accessed April 13, 2014.  http://blackboard.qut.edu.au 

Filmmakers are beginning to recognise fans as “important contributors”, evolved from the development of web 2.0 audiences are no longer just consumers of media but are now also producers. Through new media cultures these film franchises are “being infused with new modes of authorship, production, marketing, and consumption that are characterized by Internet fan clubs”. These fans after watching films, playing video games or reading books can “appropriate corporate-generated imagery, and then embellish or transform it with personal artistic expression” in the form of “poetry, songs, paintings, scholarly essays, creative fiction, photographs, digital films, collages or clothing” (Shefrin 2004, 14). These fans really want to feel like they are apart of something and they are now being given the chance.

I've added some videos below to show you just must fans get into these films, through dressing up and attending conventions to developing their own videos. 

Jackson and New Line Cinema actively sort out the fans of Lord of the Rings during the development of the trilogy. Fans were given opportunities to provide opinions in “aspects of authoring, casting, filming and marketing”. However Lucas and LucasFilm made the mistake of offending the Star Wars fans by not involving them throughout the development of the franchise.  The fans desires to be “consumer affiliates” in the cinematic production process have been generally ignored; on the other hand, in their roles as “illegal pirates” of corporately-owned intellectual property have been overly emphasized” (Shefrin 2004, 3). Lucas jeopardised his business by failing to listen to the fans, whereas Jackson thrived by listening to his audience.

  This idea of participatory fandom is becoming more popular throughout new media. Web 2.0 has set the bar for audiences to no longer just consume media but be actively be involved in the development process. I personally believe we no longer live in a world where filmmakers can just focus on creating great films; we need to be reached across multiple technological platforms in new and exciting ways. Would love to hear more examples of filmmakers interacting with participatory fandoms.

References

Attractions Magazine. 2010. “Tour the Star Wars Celebration V hall floor with Jedi Mindy.” YouTube video posted August 16, 2010. Accessed April 4, 2014. http://youtu.be/LBb0sbOLgfY

Nakediowa. 2009. “Lord of the Rings Fan Film Trailer.” YouTube video posted July 30, 2009. Accessed April 4, 2014. http://youtu.be/YQl6BoB7SA0

In Jonathan Zittrain’s video “Minds for sale” he raised some thought-provoking points about the evolving world of cloud computing in which he provides “a fascinating (and non-scare-mongering) view of a future in which nearly any mental act can be bought and sold”. Zittrain brings up the crowdsourcing Internet marketplace Amazon Mechanical Turk, a controversial program that allows any person with a computer and the Internet to “offer their services for a wide range of jobs, most paying well below the minimum wage” (Dobson 2013). Users have “no security, no employment contracts, no holidays, no sick pay, no payment for equipment – nothing but the payment of a few dollars or cents into their amazon account” (Dobson 2013). These “turkers” don’t even know for whom they are completing these tasks. Its weird to think that something we might believe to be “artificial intelligence” is actually a person who may be answering your question. So what about the similar programs that people don’t even get paid for using?

  I believe users are somewhat unaware of organisations capitalising on their uses of social media, we allow companies to “outsource paid labour time to consumers or fans that work for free” (Fuchs 2013). Coca-Cola is an excellent example of companies who use crowdsourcing for a way in which to “harness collective resources (knowledge, money, creativity) to solve problems and/or produce things” (Sauter 2014) in order to increase profits. In their “Where Will Happiness Strike?” campaign they asked social media users to contribute ideas about creating happiness to allow them to develop videos for their social media marketing. They also requested online suggestions for “marketing [their] products more effectively, once again tying social media to co-creation” (Jartese 2013).

  Although there are many disadvantages to new media labour there are also benefits, consumers are provided with increased opportunities to not only be consumers of media but also to participate in the production process. According to Sauter (2014) we are “harnessing the power of the crowd to do things that would otherwise be difficult to achieve”. In the case of crowdsourcing it really is up to the individual about their particular views of the issue and how much they are willing to participate in companies using the tools they have to capitalise. What the readers view on this subject? Who has the control is this situation the consumer or the company? Please leave a comment below.

References

Coca-Cola. 2013. “Coca-Cola Creates Park: Roll Out Happiness.” YouTube video, posted October 1, 2013. Accessed March 29, 2014. http://youtu.be/6Ih0Drtuufc.

Dobson, Julian. 2013. "Mechanical Turk: Amazon's New Underclass." The Blog, February 19. Accessed March 29, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoe-chaves/amazon-mechanical-turk_b_4181977.html.

Fuchs, Christian. 2013. “Chapter 5 : The Power and Political Economy of Social Media.” In Social media : a critical introduction, 97 – 125. London: Sage Publications. Accessed March 29, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au.

  Jartese. 2013. “5 Examples of Companies Innovating with Crowdsourcing.” Perspectives on Innovations. October 18. Accessed March 29, 2014. http://www.innocentive.com/blog/2013/10/18/5-examples-of-companies-innovating-with-crowdsourcing/

  Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 Internet, Self and Beyond: Week 4 lecture notes.” Accessed March 29, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au.

I continually ask my self why our generation feels the need to post everything we do on Facebook or other social networking sites. Do we believe that checking in to an expensive restaurant or a popular bands concert will build our social status? The reason to me is quite obvious; we take advantage of this digital environment to develop profiles to present ourselves favourably the way in which we want others to perceive us (Boyd, 2011). We can no longer separate our reality from our online presence, “our life is [now] lived in, rather than with media – we are living a media life”. An excellent example of this convergence of ones reality and online presence is that “we are now all living inside our very own Truman Show (referring to the 1998 movie by director Peter Weir): a world characterized by pervasive and ubiquitous media that we are constantly and concurrently deeply immersed in, that we are the stars of, and that dominate and shape all aspects of our everyday life” (Deuze, 2011).

Having divulged this information about ourselves on social networking sites, we need to question how much control we really have over the information we share. By default privacy settings on social networking sites “prompt users to be more public with their information”, in order to disable these default privacy settings the user must “monitor, adjust and master” the revised settings to control who sees their posts. However “the persistence, replicability, scalability, and searchability of personal data deposited as individuals to forge social connections present privacy challenges”. We regard privacy as “control over information about oneself”, therefore the highly concerning underlying issue is how the information we disclose is being used. The US allows “digital traces of consumer behaviour that remain on partner and third party sites that users visit, like, or share, to be further exploited” without permission from those individuals.  (Papacharissi & Gibson, 2011). Privacy is fast becoming a luxury, that we are subconsciously willing to give up so we can remain socially active online. On these sites we need to be aware that it is much “easier to share information than it is to hide it” (Papacharissi & Gibson, 2011) and we shouldn’t post personal information that we aren’t willing to share with the world.  

Now I pose to you the question how comfortable are you with giving up control over your personal information on social networking sites?

References

Boyd, Danah, (2011). Chapter 2: Social Network Sites as Networked Publics – Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Papacharissi, Zizi, A networked self – identity, community, and culture on social network sites. 39 - 5. New York: Routledge.

Deuze, Mark. 2011. “Media Life.” Media, Culture & Society 33 (1): 137 – 145.