WEEK 9: I was in Paris however.......

I was absent for WEEK 9, having a smashing time in Paris working and playing and blah blah. What I can gather took place using the WIKI concerning week 9  is that there were more interesting discussions. The WIKI states the following:

This week we watched 2 talks by Clay Shirky. The first was in 2005 when tags was a new feature in Flickr, the 2nd talk was from 2009 and in some ways show how quickly things have developed.


The session started with the following statement:

digital environments create the possibility for . . .

everyone was asked to consider what they might add to this statement and we looked at in again after watching each talk.

talk 1: http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html

talk 2: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html


Further notes and video: http://zx31.com/elective/ 






These are very interesting and relevant to my post: Who or WHAT is Rupert Murdoch http://positivenonpositive.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-or-what-is-rupert-murdoch.html

These are the responses people in the group came up with concerning the following statement:
digital environments create the possibility for . . .

1) Increasing the impact of the individual voice
2) Mass action
3) Less institutionalised, professionaly driven world moving towards one that is more socially driven.
4) Breakdown of institutional hierarchy.
5) The human archetype.
6) Equality for expression, instability of information access (loss of history).
7) Having a choice to find the right answer.
8) Freedom of expression.
9) Powerful, global group influence.
10) Mass collaboration of individuals.
11) Access to hi-technology (rejection?)
12) Bitesize media consumption. 
13) Less linear and geographic based communication/societies/communities.
14) A more level playing field, producers and consumers are one. 
15) Complete exposure.
16) Diluted power structures.
17) Positive and negative.
18) Ease?
19) Escape from reality?
20) Triangular to circular (reference to 4. Breakdown of institutional hierarchy.)

It is difficult to understand the precise meaning of these points. From what I can make out they all hold validity. The individual is certainly able to make an impact (in support of 1) although not often on their own. Amidst the immense noise that constitutes the internet or perhaps the "the vast ocean of trivial musings and mind-scat wedged in the intellectual sewage pipe" (To quote from Jack Sharp 's interesting commentary again) it is not all that clear how to filter the voice of an individual or how to understand their message or their needs. Referring to the comments about mass collaboration and action (2 and 10) it is these that enable the exposure of a powerful, global group influence (9). Weather the influence is conscious (e.g. planned group action) or not is not always clear however it is not always necessary to clarify this. In the example of the 2009 earthquake in China, the masses of people who were uploading information about it  said something very clear about it because it was such a dramatic event. The nature of the event was violent, unexpected and was effecting real life instantly. It was worth talking about it, it effected so many people who all had the means to share information concerning how it effected them at the same instant that it was happening, be it a photo up load or on twitter etc. Similarly it was something people outside China were very interested in. The so called great firewall of China could not predict such a surge of information, similarly it could not predict an earthquake. This indicates none other than the obvious; that massive Earthquakes, events and dramatic events are a big deal when they happen, of great public interest for the clear fact that they effect people so much and that such things are definitely worth preparing for.

The internet leads us to assume it encourages freedom of expression (8) because with out the additions by people the internet would not be as immense, far reaching or as diverse as it is.  Also, almost anyone and every one can and could start some kind of blog or join some kind of network from which they can  personally express some kind of opinion and/or add some kind of information (no matter how trivial, meaning full or relevant that information might be). Which is the opportunity digital software's use to be made user friendly- and democratic in reference to 4.
Take two examples of 3D software as an example: MAYA- A 'professional' 3D software which is quite expensive, complicated to learn and immensely capable of highly meticulous operations Vs. Google 3D, which is free for everyone, fairly self explanatory and still yields some of the greatness achievable with MAYA but never to such  degrees of accuracy. If I wanted to make something simple, like a ball with in a ball, I may as well use the free-ware.
The internet almost teases  out new technologies from individuals and demands they be democratised. Probably a result of the high volume of internet users and their human desire and nature to respond, e.g with the creation of interactive websites, animations and games etc and how people in-turn create a reply to these ideas.
The digital environment it one that is generative and so simplistic in its most basic form, which in  principal is packet switching. This is an idea as clear as day yet it's applications are potentially infinitely complicated. The fact that this form of communication is based on sharing a circuit is as symbolic as it is practical. 

WEEK 7: A web of opinions (more discussions- Different points of view)

INFORMATION FROM THE WIKI PAGE: We looked at 5 views of the internet as outlined by Charles Leadbeater. 


1. Just a tool

the importance of the internet is overblown it's the same as we have always done

- just quicker, bigger audience eg. ebay is just a large and convenient flea market.


2. big but becoming dull: dull = integrated into everyday life. Big changes can lead to big gains but only after the technological changes have become integrated but it's a long time before we really see what impact the internet will have, if any.  Saying Big changes can lead to big gains but only after the technological changes have become integrated contradicts big but becoming dull. It doesn't consider time, that the internet will continue long after all the living of this generation die, nor does it consider the acceleration of technological developments or what it might be like for someone in the world who is just learning for the first time about the internet.  Digital environments allow us to create new ways of  using the internet, and people will always be renewing and adding modified updated content. 

3. big but BAD: There are 3 reasons why some people see the internet as bad:

1. killing experts & professionals - mass amateurism

2. dependency on web - eroding independent thought - dumbing down

3. eroding privacy & identity

4. big and getting bigger FAST: For those holding this view, they see the internet as mainly good but there are different views as to why it is good:
a. more diversity, choice, frictionless markets, free stuff, choice, capitalist cornucopia, long tail
b. community & collaboration, commons production, peer to peer, non market, non hierarchical, open source, wikipedia, we think, communitarian utopia.
c. different options for organising ourselves, get the things that matter done, innovation & knowledge sharing, collaboration, professionals & amateurs (but will all this social networking, new conversations, actually help in tackling major issues like environmental problems?)

5. big, good - could become bad

growth of the internet = pollution in the internet
spam, malware, surveillance, invasion of privacy, trivia, chaos, abuse of net = clogged up

This view sees the current self-organisation as only a passing phase, it needs traditional control someone to organise it - this leads to paid for access the internet needs someone, business or maybe governments to regulate it, clean it up, build areas of easy quick access, free from spam, trivia etc paid for access would of course mean that not everyone would have the same access. It is interesting that we talk about THE internet, one internet. It wasn't always like that, for example Compuserve and AOL started as walled off parts of the world wide web. 

Implications
It is important to be aware of these different views so that as you walk into this new and ever expanding world, you have your eyes wide open and are able to see the implications for your own creative practice.

* Traditional control/organisation is not versatile in a virtual environment such as the internet which is ever changing and ever growing. It thus follows that the way we use, view, organise, control and influence this environment must be adaptable to the substance in question. There is an ever increasing abundance of information that can not traditionally be dealt with. This is what's exciting about technology today and change will make the best of it. The internet IS a tool, I agree with this, but the fact that it is such a diverse and effective one means that what it is used to do sometimes has implications on people that really effects how they feel, what they know and what they want to do, so its probably a little bit more than 'just' a tool. Just like how the printing press was more than a tool.  All grand technological and cultural advances have a good side and a bad side. The good (in my opinion) always overrides that bad, mainly because things like photosynthesis astound me to such an extent that I oblivious to overriding negativity, although not totally ignorant in being aware of negative  things like manipulation, fraud, theft and abuse that would take place with or with out the internet.

NOTE and question: Ebay is not a flea market at all, its an auction. There is no haggling on ebay, only bidding perhaps an element of betting.  Its not comparable to a flea market at all because the whole point of a flea market if the physical experience of the masses of old junk you can find- this aesthetic is integral to the purpose of the flea market, even though there is loads of junk on ebay too. Similarly one could probably sell a broken glass in a wet cardboard box for 2p at a flea market, or at least try but its highly unlikely that anyone would do this on ebay (not impossible though of course).  For starters this is not cost effective on a pay account.  Its notable the impact of the revenue of ebay and paypal the impact of this on modern economics and our relation ship with it and things like online banking, shopping etc.

This stance neglects that SELF ORGANISATION automatically takes the most effective route. Education and awareness through the internet concerning dangers and forums where people can discuss this is definitely favorable over 'traditional control/organisation/leadership'. What is exactly meant by this anyway? It does not make sense to me, he could mean a feudal system equivalent for all I know. Governance and leadership should always be a response to what is needed, be adaptable and relative to its time. Else any possible regulation processes could threaten progress by being outdated.

QUOTE: Self-organization is a process of attraction and repulsion in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (but not always) display emergent properties.

Here is video from http://www.wherethehellismatt.com/. Below is an extract from his website that is an excellent example of the collaborative nature of the internet and what that nature can lead too and how it connects to physical environments all over the world. 

Matt is a 32-year-old deadbeat from Connecticut who used to think that all he ever wanted to do in life was make and play videogames. Matt achieved this goal pretty early and enjoyed it for a while, but eventually realized there might be other stuff he was missing out on. In February of 2003, he quit his job in Brisbane, Australia and used the money he'd saved to wander around Asia until it ran out. He made this site so he could keep his family and friends updated about where he is. A few months into his trip, a travel buddy gave Matt an idea. They were standing around taking pictures in Hanoi, and his friend said "Hey, why don't you stand over there and do that dance. I'll record it." He was referring to a particular dance Matt does. It's actually the only dance Matt does. He does it badly. Anyway, this turned out to be a very good idea. A couple years later, someone found the video online and passed it to someone else, who passed it to someone else, and so on. Now Matt is quasi-famous as "That guy who dances on the internet. No, not that guy. The other one. No, not him either. I'll send you the link. It's funny."

The response to the first video brought Matt to the attention of the nice people at Stride gum. They asked Matt if he'd be interested in taking another trip around the world to make a new video. Matt asked if they'd be paying for it. They said yes. Matt thought this sounded like another very good idea.

In 2006, Matt took a 6 month trip through 39 countries on all 7 continents. In that time, he danced a great deal.

The second video made Matt even more quasi-famous. In fact, for a brief period in July, he was semi-famous.

Things settled down again, and then in 2007 Matt went back to Stride with another idea. He realized his bad dancing wasn't actually all that interesting, and that other people were much better at being bad at it. He showed them his inbox, which, as a result of his semi-famousness, was overflowing with emails from all over the planet. He told them he wanted to travel around the world one more time and invite the people who'd written him to come out and dance too.

The intro of this presentation in 2008 will give you a summary of Matt's dancing all over the world followed by a lecture by Dr. Jeff Sutherland about how high performance depends on the self-organizing capability of teams.

Information spreading and Cross-Blogging

I originally found this blog entry via a post from google blog (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/). It is originally from  citizentube.com which specialises in publishing you-tube videos that reveal events of some kind social, anthropological or political significance  uncovering peoples related behaviors and reactions. It is an example of how information spreads and how people respond to topics that effect them or of great importance to them. (Please read the comments too). This makes the internet an influential and informative medium. 

http://www.citizentube.com/2009/12/ordinary-citizens-extraordinary-videos.html

WEEK 4: Video responses

Here are some interesting video responses about how the world is changing because of digital environments becoming more assessable to people. 
There exists a paradox in the fact that digital environments can resemble a more humane and diverse way to manage, communicate, share, create and govern in contrast to cases of individual users who devote the majority of their time to online socialising in opposed to physical socialising. Maybe to the detriment of their physical health? I don't know, but I say this because we have bodies to use them to express and move ourselves. Having said this, thanks to mobile technologies it is easier now than ever before for us to be online all while your moving and do so all day with out must physical hindrance. 
We are able to make independent rational decisions about our future and the internet offers us more access to one another and to old or new information. We invented the internet and it is by nature generative and based on sharing circuits and data so it goes with out saying that 'the machine' to some extent is us and that we are it. 


The user interface (also known as human computer interface or man-machine interface (MMI)) is the aggregate of means by which people—the users—interact with thesystem—a particular machine, device, computer program or other complex tool. The user interface provides means of:

• Input, allowing the users to manipulate a system
• Output, allowing the system to indicate the effects of the users' manipulation.

http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/home.aspx

Here is an extract from his homepage: 

"IDEAS IN PROGRESS

Why relationships are central to innovative public services solutions: a state of relationships

The Art of With : draft of my essay for Cornerhouse, Manchester can be downloaded here

The Art of With is about whether the web is creating a more open, participative and collaborative approach to culture and art, and whether that is a good thing.

You can also download the essay, comment on the draft and make your own point at the Cornerhouse site - www.cornerhouse.org/theartofwith

My long draft response to the British government's Digital Britain report can be downloaded here

The Search for a New Capitalism: a speculative essay for The Spectator, can be found here"

There is no stopping internet use, or preventing the encouragement for more participants to use it. I think it definitely is an open, participative and collaborative approach to culture and art. People are curious about each other and the internet allows them to discover more about what was previously inaccessible.  It has physically effected more people than any other medium and some of the innovations people have created on it are extremely clever, interactive and fun to use. I do not consider it the MOST OPEN participative and collaborative approach to culture and art, for starters one needs a means to be online (but this can be done through an affordable hand-held devise). I consider it rivaled by real-life physical interactive events and arts. These may not summon the same audiences that are online (due to the sheer volume of that audience) nor does live physical work need the same type of cunning required to make the most the diverse digital medium, but live physical collaborative events are very important as they demand a tactile, tangible, 3-Dimensional dexterity that only yields rewards upon physical experiences of such concrete things. 
Of course these two combined, the internet allowing a means to spread real-life events is currently the whole point. Recorded online broadcasts of important events or collaborative arts are one of the great attractions the internet offers us, and is one of the reasons why we turn to it. Its ability to facilitate communication and the variety of ways in which we can do this makes it collaborative and participative.

http://www.everyoneforever.com/

Whether the internet's influence is a good thing or not is an important to consider. In essence it is and was designed to enable the transfer on information (e.g. data or ideas) and it one we should definitely endeavor to improve and maintain. The information we share (e.g. Ideas) has however more profound implications on individuals now than because of their meaning. As people grow closer to the internet and its use spreads further and faster this is increasingly the case. What ever your view on the matter may be, the fact is that this technology will not cease to grow. People want to use it because we want to know about the other things people are doing, be it art, events, organisations, trivia or an important discovery. A good out come would work in our favor, so its in our best interest to encourage open and positive use. 

WEEK 3: Manovich essay discussion

In response to a discussion about Lev Manovich's essay about

The Practice of Everyday (media) Life:

http://digital-environments.wikispaces.com/Manovich+essay

http://manovich.net/

It would be safe to state that there is a lot one can say about only one aspect of the internet. The compelling nature of the discussion we had in class lies in the impact digital environments has had and is having on our actual lives. The internet having been introduced and shuffled in to public domains throughout the last 25 years. Generations of the future will be born into an era where the internet is in use and used across the world. It has shifted from being an area used for publication to a realm of communication, which is very significant fluctuation. The internet content is increasingly produced by amateurs and this has particular consequence as it is an example that many more people are becoming able to express them selves and communicate in a creative way exploiting digital environments. Every continent is in some way on line, all countries and potentially all people could communicate with each other. Through out the discussion, questions emerged that challenged how this effects our lives. 

Here is lecture expressing a positive assessment of the facilities available to us through internet communication and the implication it can have on physical relationships.

http://www.ted.com/talks/stefana_broadbent_how_the_internet_enables_intimacy.html

QUESTIONS:

The first part of the essay has lots of statistics about media use, can you add any personal experiences to support or contradict these facts? One example of misguided internet statistics lies in the fact that users are continually shifting how, when and where they communicate. With the increasing use of mobile technology and mobile internet, some people today can be 'online' all day long with out much inconvenience to their lives or routines. The internet is a fluid field (or pool) of data with users logging in and out all the time, individuals signing up to news letters, remaining logged on to sites for days, having their emails added to databases and so on and so fourth. Manovich's statistics were perhaps completely true at one point in time, 2008 is recent history. The fact that this essay was written in 2008 and the internet has since then already changed dramatically makes it easy to disagree with their certitude. 
One example of change being the increase in users of twitter. As long  users continue using, digital social migrations will continue to spread in to a variety of new and already existing networks. By writing about change there is an indication that such things are inevitable. 
I will use myself as an example: I have not used my my-space account for a long time (over half a year perhaps). Statistically, because I am still registered I am still a user. As Manovich states himself, ‘The real challenge may lie in the dynamics of Web 2.0 culture – its constant innovation, its energy, and its unpredictability.’? So perhaps the methods we exploit to gather and analyse data will bustle into methods that integrate the mappability of web 2.0 and real time analysis with be more capable and/or these methods will be more adaptive or general terms that firmly refer or anchor themselves to the particular point time. 
This wedsite on INTERNET STATISTICS:  http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Indicates, 25.6 % of the population of the world having used the internet for September 30, 2009. The deomographic numbers are based on data gathered by the US census beuro. This graph might be out dated in a only a few months. (Please click for greater detail or follow the link to internetworldstats.com to see how they are changing)

Manovich suggests the merging and even reversing of De Certeau’s categories of ‘strategy’ and ‘tactic’, do you agree with this point? Is there a democraticing of media or is it still in the hands of ‘big business’
Like the many other millions of internet users, I get sent adverts (or spam) to my inbox, with out fail these messages either go to junk, which is seldom checked and always deleted (a method employed by many of the receivers of such information). Its a very interesting time for business because it is so competitive and people are very sensitive to information privacy, making them perhaps doubtful of intrusive spam.  EBAY is one significant development in terms of trading. Users can be sellers and reach potential buyers. The advertising partly takes place in the searching process as all things are categorised. Reputation, nonetheless does NOT cease to be of importance, people like to have a reason to trust whoever they are buying from.
Adverts appear when I access my facebook account but considering all the information in the 'about me' section of my profile is utter nonsense its very unlikely any advertisers with be able to get through to me. The only extent to which advertising on Facebook has directly effected my existence is when I have been made aware of a particular event which has appeared interesting to me and brought to my attention by someone I know. So the element of a person interacting with you still seems to be very important in a successful internet commerce. 
I think the influence of the internet becoming more democratic and is slipping out of the hands of big businesses into the hands of people for example who that are happy to promote ideas or events for free and out of interest. This signifies an interesting view of the future for modern economics (which is quite difficult for me to get my head around.) There will always be a demand for something, and somewhere some one will always be willing to provide a solution to for fill it. So there will always be opportunity for business, but not in a conventional hierarchical way.


Takes for example the success of WIKIPEDIA, which is free and exists as verified user generated content in comparison to to the diminishing ENCATRA, which you had to pay for. Similarly the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE (is also user generated).


There certainly exists a strategy and tactic in the way the internet is shuffled between users when money is involved. The goal to materialise revenue via a far reaching medium- the internet, cheaper that any other kind of media and user friendly, it could potentially develop a massive clientele. Some of whom may without the use of internet may never be made aware of your services and how they can benefit them from the comfort of their own homes. This concept is extremely attractive to business. Even when primarily there is no financial transition being made from a network or database, the database in use will still certainly have value because of its potential commercial value. People often discuss their concerns about social websites such as facebook, twitter, my-space and to a greater extent second life. Concerned because of privacy issues that are embroiled in the fact that their personal information could fabricate revenue for someone. Another concern is the influence that online socialising has on relationships because a broad physical experience of the world (socially, objectively, personally, etc) is much better for us in comparison to residing within one or few realms which do in-fact mute some of the greatest aspects of being human e.g: regardless of how far interactive technologies could go, optically or haptically there is nothing quite as good as a REAL breath of fresh air. Surely? 
Questions concerning the ownership of data on facebook for example yields intrigue from users. The answer is that the data provides revenue for some one or some group of peoples somewhere beyond the internet. Facebook make it impossible for you to completely shut down/erase your profile, you can merely suspend or freeze it. Only recently did this enterprise hold the rights over all things published and posted, and the content on Facebook is only vaguely real considering it goes through such a rigorous selection process by the individual. Leading me to assume that as there is no real, informative meaning to the information on facebook (although it can be at times entertaining) this however is that the trivial pool provided by facebook has value. It seems that it can be a target indicator to advertisers, and the persistence of internet advertising directs me to conclude that SOME revenue is actually made. Facebook can only really indicate some facts concerning peoples lifestyles e.g. photos may reveal what people get up to on the weekend which may (or may not) be of importance to employers when selecting employees.  It is interesting that people are selective of the information they post or allow to be posted about them selves despite this fact. I like to contemplate who they are trying to appeal too if such is the case. It is easy to be skeptical of such networks internet, although it is an unavoidable response to how it has changed our time. Perhaps its only a matter of time before big businesses will have no choice but to adopt the role of the average user to be successful. Like many wolves in sheeps clothing.

What do you make of Manovich’s statement, ‘ it is only a matter of time before constant broadcasting of one’s live becomes as common as email’? It is already possible to continually broadcast one's life, regarding you have continual internet connection and some mobile devise with a camera that allows you to do so. The benefit of continual broad casting being as common as email is hard for me to understand, its seems like it would be really boring and unnecessary to watch (unless perhaps for vital research or art? This idea reminds me a bit of the film The Trueman Show). 

Nonetheless, twitter is extremely popular and concerns itself with thousands of one sentence 'broad cast' from thousands of contributers.


THE MAPPABILITY OF WEB 2.0
Here is a link to interesting, paradoxical and rather sad counters comparing internet activity to child death's related to hunger: http://www.wfp.org/1billion

Who or WHAT is Rupert Murdoch?

Here is an extract from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.

In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.

"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said. "We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story - but if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form."

The 78-year-old mogul's assertion, however, is not actually correct: users who click through to screened WSJ.com articles from Google searches are usually offered the full text of the story without any subscription block. It is only users who find their way to the story through the Wall Street Journal's website who are told they must subscribe before they can read further.

Murdoch added that he did not agree with the idea that search engines fell under "fair use" rules - an argument many aggregator websites use as part of their legal justification for reproducing excerpts of news stories online.

"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... but we'll take that slowly."

Rupert Murdoch's ideas on how he wants to deal with the internet are regressive. This is not just an opinion but an observable fact  that can be deduced after reading this article (but I will look for some others relating to this story because I dont want to be biased). This clarifys that the news is not just news but an enterprise. Ol' Rupert already has A LOT of money. He is old and successful enough to not need any more I'm sure, not that this can ever be a realistic or rational reason (let alone an excuse) for ANYONE alive to stop  working/making or trying at what they do best HOWEVER it is perhaps one of many reasons for some one like him to continue allowing people to access information for free. (Is this an observable fact too? Am I wrong? Is it true to state that his idea is too greedy and backwards?)  I like to repeat myself so I will now, diversity=success, this is well known and obvious.
Ideas that focus on improving only ONE aspect of our modern culture/society (e.g: Money- as important as it may be) will neglect and dilute other aspects of culture. No one should have that kind of power over something as diverse as the internet. THE sense of necessity that is integral to design and innovation in art, technology and science  funnily enough is more often pure endeavour and not  financial gain. The best and most useful creations/inventions/discoveries etc were found by accident or through a purposeful and/or industrious undertaking (especially ones that require effort and/or boldness). And always as part of an earnest and conscientious activity intended to do or accomplish something, attempting so by employing effort and interest in the project/subject at hand.

Please watch the following presentations, I think the first one demonstrates and explains some of the dangers of draconian control over the internet and its content to our future, while the second describes other views and dangers of the internet and how it can be used to manipulate (but then again so can T.V and Newspapers etc...Which coincidentally are some of the things that Rupert owns).

Generally there are 2 sides to every coin

In response to Manovich's essay and what was earlier discussed in class: The internet is definitely a marvel, and so are newspaper and both radio and televised broadcasts etc. Needless to say, all of the said forms of media and beyond are subject to manipulation. People are also partial to formulating opinions and in (many parts of the world) some way obliged- socially perhaps? (although not forced) to contribute towards the grand, plentiful data pool that is... The internet.







There are certain benefits of this invention, mainly being related to its democratic 'all may contribute' nature, because every one can and does have a voice in some way shape or form, and the internet is one place where your voice can be publicly expressed.



This is a powerful principle, perhaps frightening to some. I think we can all agree that there IS an abundance of digital noise out there and that a lot of internet content is trivial but what the input represents in terms of technology, communication and censorship is much more important.







Its important that there is a means that encourages freedom of expression. No matter how trivial, else censorship would become far too severe and depends on the opinion of perhaps very few individuals.



Of course, the immense mass of data dilutes some a sense of intelligence, necessity, creativity and/or ingenuity just like how the sounds of a busy road or noisy environment may drown out parts conversation you are trying to engage in. Lots of people enjoy talking about nonsense, which is not necessarily an insult because its an observable fact. The process and experience of the internet is by nature a selective one. In most countries you may select the content you view as much as you select the content that you contribute.







My sister forwarded me an email containing a public message from her friend. This blog entry is a comment on what he has said despite his request at the end "PS Please don’t comment on this. I don’t want to hear what you think and it will only encourage me to post more useless shite." I agree with the content and think its funny. At the same time its relevant to this part of my course. Its all an important part of the information development process. I presume there is a use for the reflections people produce in response to what other people say when given unlimited opportunity to express themselves, never mind how blandly they decide to do so.











Keep your trivia to yourself... by Jack Sharp



I don’t want to know what you had for lunch, what hat you’re wearing










or what type of dog you just saw. Stop spewing mindless content into










the great expanse of the internet in the vain hope that someone will










read it and give you a virtual pat on the bum for the cute little life



you lead.







True, the human mind has been a festering hive of trivial sewage for



thousands of years, but the sluice gates tended to stay shut or at



least only open on street corners or in public houses where the stink



could disappear harmlessly into the atmosphere. Now the stench of



mindless drivel is trapped and displayed for the entire world on the



internet. Constantly being replaced and updated with more totally



pointless shit.







The absolute worst thing about it is that when I inevitably stumble



across these shit-nuggets I feel compelled to read them and further



dull my over-stimulated brain when I would much rather be reading a



novel or playing my guitar or ….actually anything… jamming cocktail



sticks into my tear ducts.







But I’m unable to turn away and just end up making myself feel wretched.







-‘Happy 1st Birthday Winston (the dog)!!’







-‘I’m drinking tea and all happy about watching episode 7x21 of Buffy’







-‘Now that the new Lotus Tesco Market has just opened on my street, I



have it plus three 7-Elevens to shop at. All within a half km. Cool!’







-‘Now I have to wait ten minutes in the cold’







-‘Fun start to the day. Coffee while doing laundry’











See, you just read all those and what did it contribute to your life. NOTHING!







And yet, here I am, committing my worthless opinion to virtual print



for someone to like/comment/blog or twitter on about. I feel sick.







My only hope is that on reading this a few people may be compelled to



ignore the vast ocean of trivial musings on the web and most



importantly refrain from contributing their own mind-scat to the



intellectual sewage pipe.







PS Please don’t comment on this. I don’t want to hear what you think



and it will only encourage me to post more useless shite.                                                                                                                  
















WHAA HAA HAAAA! I feel like I have completed the cycle some how. If this is referring to facebook, Jack should adjust the settings so that that he receive NO NEWS from any one. Its an option.  On media: It's useful to be skeptical, patient and informed. And to question all things presented to you without irrational assumptions that you know everything. Question things with out feeling obliged to follow unreasonable and extreme theories or conspiracies.



No one has all the answers and no one ever will.