So, where to from here? It seems pretty certain that user-led activity is set to dominate the near future.
Rachel Botsman champions the power of collaboration and sharing through network technologies. She speaks and writes on the many solutions to social issues that are emerging around the world - including Ushahidi - an open source software organisation dedicated to "lowering the barriers so that people can tell their stories."
Most of us know that Google and Facebook in particular, gather information on us. Advertisements and even searches are personalised. In this TEDtalk, online organiser Eli Pariser describes the "filter bubble" you may find yourself in, after Google's decision to opt everyone in to 'personalisation':
This cautionary message should not be understated, as industry analyst Jeremiah Owyang predicts "more and more targeted and sophisticated marketing" from the big two - Google and Facebook(Interview on the future of the Internet).
Some statistics tell us that people are increasingly identifying or 'liking' brands, but do not want to be 'listened' in on by advertisers when they are using social media.
"According to Altimeter, 42% of businesses in the US are prioritising Social Media Listening in 2013 – putting real focus on how they sift through and learn from the conversations in social media. But a recent study of US consumers found that 51% of them do not want brands to be listening to what they say online. As a greater emphasis is placed on social media listening and big data, the tensions with consumer privacy will also rise" (from an article in Business 2 Community 2013).
Fifty one percent may object to brands, but others are embracing brands and meeting them head on in companies (?) online communities (?) such as Kred and Klout that walk a blurry line between empowered consumer and rewards customer. The extinction of privacy looms at the bottom of this social tech evolution, revolution and I really value mine. The idea that my Google search is different to another's is depressing and Jeremiah Owyang's affirmative answer to the question of whether or not Google may attempt to engineer serendipity, chilling. This grouchy crab is not very social as a rule - not even answering the cobwebbed landline unless absolutely necessary. So, I must bring up the spectacle of the Google spectacles. Hey, it's late and I did warn at the start that there would be crusty humour. I love the look of Google Glass. They look fun and I would love to have the opportunity to have a go of a pair. But - the privacy issue is real for so many situations. An amateurish delve into Australia's privacy laws showed policy makers readying for the challenges of the digital age - but has any country in the world had a challenge such as this? And there are other issues that just scream out to be addressed. This, again, is a cautionary tale from two psychologists on the dangers associated with "inattentional blindness" that could arise with use of Google Glass. Finally - in my future gaze - I would like to think there will be a backlash to social media use. Where individuals and groups actively plan for technology-free time. Where the novelty of so many of our devices and their applications will have worn off a bit and we target our use more. It is a cliche, but there is an outside world, where children can learn without the assistance of a mini device. Where reflection and being bored are valued as a part of growth. I hope that all this will be incorporated into our increasingly busy and hyper-connected lives.
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (www.wikipedia.org)
So, here you see what looks like an advertisement on my blog. But, by the action of snapping a screenshot of Wikipedia's home page and providing a link to the site, I have both used and repackaged elements of the whole - I have behaved as a produser.
Dr. Axel Bruns (2008) suggested the term ‘produsage’ to describe
the collaborative use and editing of what he calls artefacts.Not products, as they would have been known
as in the past – but artefacts – things made, but not necessarily ever
finished.Wikipedia is seen as the archetypical model of
produsage, ever-open to editing from a vast, collaborative group. Bruns (2008) frames the process of editing Wikipedia as:
"a massively distributed process of consensus-building (and sometimes dissent, which may be even more instructive if users invest the time to examine different points of view) in motion, rather than a dead snapshot of the consensual body of knowledge agreed upon by a small group of producers” (Bruns 2008, interviewed by Henry Jenkins).
The "dead snapshot" description Bruns (2008) mentions to was in reference the old style of encyclopedia, such as Encyclopedia Britannica and other traditionally produced books of that kind.
According to Bruns (2008) 'produsage' requires the following (core) principals:
Open participation and communal evaluation - the community should be sufficiently large and hold varying qualifications.
Fluid heterarchy (that is, each produser theoretically plays an equal role) and Ad Hoc Meritocracy; where produsers participate according to their personal skills, interest and knowledge. Their level of involvment changes as the project proceeds.
Unfinished Artefacts, Continuing Process.
Common Property, Individual Rewards: contributors permit (non-commercial) community use and adaptation of their intellectual property, and are rewarded by the status capital gained through this process.
This is all much 'food for thought'. Bruns (2008) is effectively saying that the traditional producer/consumer relationship is making way for collaborative processes where a participant can make a contribution, just by being social for example. Clicking a link on Google, assists with their page-ranking system of importance or relevance Bruns (2008) explains.
So far, I have only given Wikipedia as an example of a produsage model, but there are video games, such as The Sims - or strategic life simulation video game - that use isometric graphics to make two-dimensional representations of three dimensional objects. I won't pretend to know exactly how that works - but the end result is that users of the game can construct virtual people - "Sims", place them in a house and tend to their moods and desires - like a pet?! After The Sims 1.1, successive series were released, each allowing more options for the player to apply to their Sim. I shouldn't scoff - apparently - according to Wikipedia - The Sims is the best-selling PC franchise in history. Regardless of that, I'm quite pleased to add this clip to the blog, which shows Sims being 'killed'.....aaahh human nature...play with the toy...get sick of the toy....destroy the toy:
The crab is far more interested in what musicians such as Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails are doing. In trailblazing fashion they have uploaded their recordings to the Creative Commons group which allows others to build on their work, adding additional vocals or instrumental tracks, remixing or sampling from the work (Stone 2009, as cited in Sonvilla-Weiss 2010). This article talks about Radiohead opening up a recent video to the public to "play with".
Reflecting on my own experience with produsage, I feel I am just getting the hang of it. As a late comer to computers (just 7 years experience) and one who worked in the ancient times of paper, typewriter and landline slavery, I am still in a state of wonder at the ease of Internet banking, cut and paste and many, many of the time and tree saving elements of the digital age.
Making comments, sharing, liking and linking are becoming part of my new vocabulary – mainly commenting on news sites and movie review sites I have to say. I have never edited Wikipedia, but would not hesitate if necessary. And lastly, blogging – these blogs are my first and are a labour of maybe not love, but great enjoyment. But – to misquote Peter Parker’s father (that’s Spiderman’s dad) – I have found that with great enjoyment, comes great responsibility. I worry about my produsage regarding my blog. I feel that whatever I post should be accurate.
However, I think we are moving toward a much more flow-oriented and trend-trending (!) world, where many old concepts are being reimagined. On with the revolution.......................................
*
SECOND LIFE is another open-ended, collaborative produser environment.
Real life
Second Life
This 2007 article is about tests conducted at the Keio University in Japan, on patients suffering severe paralysis and the opportunities that could be afforded them in the Second Life environment. Electrodes attached to the scalp pick up electrical changes that are associated with brain activity. This data was able to be picked up by a computer and used by the patient to manipulate an avatar around the virtual world.
"Second Life could motivate patients with severe paralysis, who are often too depressed to undergo rehabilitation," said Junichi Ushiba, the universities biosciences and informatics professor.
This is, in my very crusty, crabby opinion, one of the only worthwhile uses for Second Life.
What a spoil sport!
*
Refs: Sonvilla-Weiss, S 2010, Mashup Cultures, EBL, Springer Publishing
The way the crab sees the situation with (mainly Australian politicians) at the moment, is similar to that of musicians of the early 1980's - the beginning of the MTV (Music Television) era. From that time on, it was not enough to write, perform and tour a great song. To be competitive, the 80's musicians also had to come up with a fantastic piece of visual art - a video clip.
Of course, some musicians took to this better than others. (I invite you dear reader to let your memories be the judge. If you can remember that far back - you will be seeing the acid wash jean, the shoulder pad, the long perm - even the jump suit......)
Source: www.mashable.com
And so it is with politicians in this era - where not only do they have to be physically out and about, meeting and talking to people in their electorate - they must now maintain a presence on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Maintain a website, perhaps with a blog and a Flickr stream. In other words a high level of social media competency is now expected of them. And, just as with the 80's musicians, they must learn to excel in the new landscape to be competitive.
In his book "The Rise of the Fifth Estate", Greg Jericho (2012) examines the state of Twitter use in Australian politics and finds it wanting. Apart from some exceptions - Malcolm Turnbull, Ed Husic, Jamie Briggs, Cory Bernardi and Scott Ludlum - Jericho (2012) concludes that no Australian politician yet has "taken the medium by the throat". He puts it down to a reluctance to engage with the active, unpredictable nature of social media and believes that most politicians would rather herd or direct people to their websites where they (the politicians) can retain more control over the engagement.
But there is another aspect to the social media landscape that affects politicians and arguably complicates their work. It is, I would argue, what former ALP minister Lindsay Tanner (2011) has called the "dumbing down [of] democracy". Our 'pollies' do not just appear on TV screens at appointed news times anymore. They are not huddled in Parliament House, out of reach of the public. They need to reach out and make themselves accessible to the public like never before. They have to be camera ready the minute they leave home and be ready to perform across platforms. In person, on radio, on television, on message in YouTube addresses, be Twittering, maintaining a Facebook presence and blogging.
So much exposure and emphasis on performance appears to be having an effect on how we perceive politicians. Appearance and relationship status of politicians seem to be as important as policy. Tanner (2011), who left politics in 2010, experienced a transformation over his career, from serious politics to what he considered a sideshow, playing for laughs. He saw that:
"Under siege from commercial pressures and technological innovation, the media are retreating into an entertainment frame that has little tolerance for complex social and economic issues. In turn, politicians and parties are adapting their behaviour to suit the new rules of the game-to such an extent that the contest of ideas is being supplanted by the contest for laughs" (Tanner 2011)
The core of Tanner's (2013) book is about the relationship between politicians and the media. Journalist and politicians alike recognise that each needs the other to exist. The ABC's Media Watch program explored the state of the association as more and more, politicians are bypassing the traditional news outlets and broadcasting their own messages via YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Journalists, naturally feel their livelihood is under threat, but are concerned that without their scrutiny, the pollies could be getting away with all manner of untruths.
Politicians, like Kate Lundy, ALP Minister for Sport, ripostes that politicians are not being asked serious policy questions by the media. She and other politicians despair that the media more and more ask questions to do with appearance, polls, emotional outbursts and leadership controversies. Here is Julie Owens, Federal Member for Parramatta speaking on this topic:
As stated earlier, some deal with the social media challenge better than others. Larger than life politician Bob Katter, who is running for the seat of Kennedy under his Australia Party banner, has an active website , Twitter and Facebook accounts, a YouTube presence and additionally has put out a call to Australian citizens to come up with a video that he can use in his campaign. Crowdsourcing in action! Entitled "Your Katter Campaign" - the search for a suitable video is being run as a competition - prize - exposure of your work, signed copy of Bob's book (a history of Australian people as told by Mr. Katter) and.....an Akubra hat!
Social media has worked extremely well for some politicians - Barak Obama's 2008 presidential being the most successful, setting a benchmark for citizen engagement. Elsewhere, there is the success of Italian comedian Beppe Grillo, who's anti-corruption blog turned into a political movement, the third largest in that country. Different methods for different environments.
"Transparency and the right to access government information are now internationally regarded as essential to democratic participation, trust in government, prevention of corruption, informed decision-making, accuracy of government information, and provision of information to the public, companies, and journalists, among other essential functions in society"(Cullier & Piotrowski, 2009; Mulgan, 2007; Quinn, 2003; Reylea, 2009a; Shuler, Jaeger, & Bertot, 2010, as cited in Bertot, Jaeger & Grimes 2010).
In the same article, Piotrowski (2007) lists four channels through which government transparency is generally achieved:
proactive dissemination by the government
release of requested materials by the government
public meetings; and
leaks from whistleblowers
On the first and second points, efforts have been made in the last four or five years in particular by governments around the world to increase the amount of information available to the public and also provide opportunites for interaction between government and citizens.
Social media has accelerated this process. The 2008 Obama campaign for presidency in the US is an oft-cited example of this, but Australian politics also moved with the times and dived in to the social media pool. First, with Kevin Rudd's campaign in 2007 and currently, where use of social media by our politicians, to engage with the public is common practice. Whether you were for or against these individuals/parties, the important point to note is that the style of campaigning changed through the use of social media. It made it easier, faster and often cheaper to get a message out, to organise meetings, to receive feedback, to connect groups.
Source: johnderry.com.au
However, this transformed way of operating raises the conundrum for governments everywhere of finding a balance between amount of information divulged and national security issues.
This question was raised with power and passion ( and yes, that is a reference to song lyrics from Australian band Midnight Oil - a purported inspiration for WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange) when the anti-corruption, pro-transparency whistle-blowing organisation WikiLeaks began operation in 2006.
Illustration of ghost crab. Source: Copyright Australian Museum
Like a fast-moving, slippery fish, information on social media is difficult to catch. Most notably, in the case of WikiLeaks - arguably the most audacious organisation or strategy to counter secrecy and corruption in the governmental and corporate world.
WikiLeaks describes itself as a not-for-profit media organisation, dedicated to the protection of free speech and media publishing.
WikiLeaks is a secure and anonymous venue (an electronic drop-box) for the deposit of documents by any person who wishes to draw attention to corrupt activities of - primarily - government or large organisations. Depositors need never be named and the information they provide is made public via chosen news outlets that work in tandem with WikiLeaks.
Controversial by nature, one of the first leaks, in 2007, was the handbook on operating procedure at the US operated Guantanamo Bay jail: "Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedure". It highlighted the fact that the US were in breach of the Geneva Convention in relation to their treatment of inmates.
In 2008 a notable leak involved account details of Swiss bank depositors who had moved funds to the Cayman Islands and out of the reach of taxation authorities.
But the leaks in 2010 that propelled WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange - pictured above, to global notoriety were firstly, footage from Iraq showing the shooting of civilians which became known as 'Collateral Murder' and secondly a large drop - over 90,000 secret US military files from the war in Afghanistan, revealing what the Guardian news described as "..a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan...", with unreported civilian casualties in the hundreds and rising, not falling Taliban attacks amongst other issues. And thirdly, the most notorious drop - over 250,000 diplomatic cables with the capacity to deeply embarrass the US administration - which came to be known as Cablegate.
After this, many government and media commentators were 'baying' for Assange's blood. He was branded a 'terrorist' and and more recently an 'enemy of the state'. But even though the fallout from the many leaks has embarrassed and infuriated the US administration and others, no actual laws have been broken, or are yet to be proved in any case. Here is barrister Julian Burnside AO QC, explaining his understanding of the situation:
Throughout history, there have been other individuals and groups who have taken steps to bring secret or hidden information to the attention of the public. In 1971, military strategist Daniel Ellsberg, leaked information about hidden agendas and activity regarding the Vietnam War, which bolstered public opposition to it. By all accounts there is mutual admiration between Ellsberg and Assange, with the latter asking the former to join the WikiLeaks board and Ellsberg proclaiming support for WikiLeaks in the media. Other high profile leaks [no less important, but stories for another day] have been concerned with big business, religious cults, science and agriculture, medicine.
"Freedom of expression and of information will always be the world’s most important freedom. If journalists were not free to report the facts, denounce abuses and alert the public, how would we resist the problem of children-soldiers, defend women’s rights, or preserve our environment? In some countries, torturers stop their atrocious deeds as soon as they are mentioned in the media. In others, corrupt politicians abandon their illegal habits when investigative journalists publish compromising details about their activities. Still elsewhere, massacres are prevented when the international media focuses its attention and cameras on events"(From Reporters Without Borders - who we are)
As well as maintaining a presence in 150 countries, they also publish an annual index ranking press freedom. This year the three most repressive countries, in relation to media freedom, were Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea -
the country most respectful of media freedom was Finland, followed by the Netherlands and Norway respectively. The secretary-general of Reporters Without Borders, Christophe Deloire states that [in compiling the index] they do not "...take direct account of the kind of political system but it is clear that democracies provide better protection for the freedom to produce and circulate accurate news and information than countries where human rights are flouted”.
Closer to home, an article on the Australian media's reaction to Wikileaks contained some, I thought, insightful views by former Liberal MP Ross Cameron on the impact of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, in these two quotes:
"Assange is forcing us to rethink our assumptions about how much protection the ordinary person needs from the truth ... the democratic project was founded on the principles of transparency and trust but has been overtaken by a culture of secrecy and spin" (Cameron 2011).
[and that] "...debating the pros and cons of WikiLeaks and Assange missed the wider point that they: represent something much bigger ... the arrival of the Internet, with its ability not just to reach a wider audience instantly, but to recruit millions of people to the task of collecting, correcting and disseminating knowledge" [this] "has seen an irreversible shift and devolution in power" (Cameron 2011).
This steers us to a point made by Henry Jenkins [in the clip below]; that being that we are in the process of, or in many cases have arrived at, a point where we have ditched a "spectatorial" way of life and moved to a "participatory" way of life. We citizens/ordinary/average people are now able to watch "Big Brother" and even hold "him/it" to account. Using the power of the Internet paired with mobile devices, blogging and sharing platforms, we can be a part of decision making and affect outcomes in all areas of life.
Footnote: There is much coverage of Julian Assange across the media spectrum. 30,100,000 Google entries and counting (!!) trawl over the details of his personal life, his early years as a hacker, his interpersonal skills, his dancing style!!
He may be the founder and face of WikiLeaks, but by no means does he work alone. It should be noted that WikiLeaks is powered by over 1,200 volunteers (source: Flew & Liu 2011) worldwide and the editing and delivery of the anonymously dropped material is done in conjunction with select news outlets around the world.
WikiLeaks has shaken up governments who have relied on secrecy for a number of their activities. It would be naive to think that secretive or corrupt activities perpetrated by government, large organisations or corporations, or individuals will ever cease - but they may think twice with the existence of such a watchdog. I believe that WikiLeaks will be kept busy for the foreseeable future.
Now, joined by his father and a group of trusted colleagues, Julian Assange is about to have a crack at politics, with the launch of the WikiLeaks Party, which plans to stand candidates in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia for seats in the Senate.
There's always something to get hot under the collar about. Something to get you hopping mad, something to make you write a letter to the newspaper about, something to get you signing petitions, making signs. Something important enough to you that you take to the streets.........
Or not?
Maybe you'll protest smarter, not harder and 'work' your issue from your laptop, pc, mobile or other device.
It would be difficult to argue against the idea that digitisation of the Internet, along with the uptake of social media platforms, has greatly helped to organise groups and distribute messages widely and with increased speed.
What was once done via word of mouth, posters in shop fronts or on power poles or walls, fixed line telephones, radio or television - can now be done with a click. Short films, blogs and online groups are often utilised to highlight, inform and facilitate an action - whether a petition, a march, a strike, a street performance, a charity event, whatever unique action is required.
There are a number of perspectives and an ongoing debate on the question of the value of digital activism.
Information system researchers Sivitanides and Shah (2011) put forward three perspectives:
Optimistic - sees digitally enhanced social media as a way to work outside of or in opposition to the traditional hierarchical power structures. It is thought that the peer-to-peer principle of networks may change how the power structure works in the real world. Also, in this context, technology is seen as socially constructed. In other words 'ordinary' people can create meaning by their choice to post, for example, political content alternate to the status quo on Facebook, YouTube, a blog or other social media platform.
Pessimistic - this view warns that the use of digitally enhanced social media could lead to further repression in anti-democratic regimes.
Persistents - the persistent view is that the tools of digitally enhanced social media have not made changes to the philosophy of activism as such. They are "not too impressed by digital activism" (Sitivanides & Shah 2011). Digitally enhanced social media only helps facilitate what can and has already been done in the real world.
Social Media theorist Clay Shirky (2009) is associated with the optimistic perspective, as he sees benefits to the use of social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, blogs, wikis and Twitter in particular in times of emergency to get messages out early. In this TEDtalk he describes a situation in Sichuan province in China when a significant earthquake occurred and it was 'tweets' that informed the world, before earthquake registering bodies or government. He informs us how a few years prior, a quake of similar magnitude had occurred and it took around three months for the notoriously secretive Chinese government to 'admit' it had happened.
Evgeny Morozov (2009) is in the pessimists camp - an Internet scientist who studies the social and political aspects of the Internet - he describes himself as a "grumpy Eastern European" from the former Soviet Republic of Belarus. Morozov (2009) puts forward the possibilities that digital technologies may afford repressive regimes. They may, for example, be able to mine information from citizens' communications and use the information to control or even persecute them. There is also the idea that these same 'tools' available to citizens and government, could also be used by hackers and terrorists.
Marshall Ganz engineered Barak Obama's grassroots organising campaign in 2008. He is a fit with the 'persistent' perspective. He believes that for every online petition there is, there could be an offline one, every Facebook campaign an on-the-ground one and so on. He and others of the same view believe that as "institutions of political and social power exist offline" (Ganz & Kohn 2010), all campaigns sooner or later must come offline into the real world to be successful.
Media commentator Mary C. Joyce (2013) finds that "reality is more complicated than either cyber-optimism or cyber-pessimism", and that a blend of technologies - hybridity - can either succeed or fail. She states that "digital technology does not have uniquely positive or negative effects on activism" and that much depends on context, complexity of problem and political system in power under which digital activists are working.
Cyber-Hedonism and Culture Jamming and Clicktivism
Evgeny Morozov (2009) counterpoints the question of how the new 'tools' are being used by the people. On one hand, the Internet and social applications such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube may be used to heighten the level of digital activism. Conversely, they can also be used for shopping, entertainment, gaming and other recreations that all come under the banner of cyber-hedonism; or as Morozov (2009) puts it, a new opium for the masses. Other commentators, such as Mary C. Joyce (2011/12/13), researcher and blogger on digital activism, concurs, saying: "the Internet can help activists mobilise and re-frame public isssues. It can also distract citizens and feed apathy."
There is another, unique, form of activism, known as culture jamming.
AdBusters call themselves theculture jammer network, known for their anti-brand, anti-consumerism campaigning. AdBusters founder Kalle Lasn is credited with sparking the Occupy Wall Street movement on September 17th, 2011. They are passionately anti-capitalist, pro-environment and employ slick graphics to take on advertisers, government and corporations by subverting some of the messages put out via mainstream channels.
Micah White from AdBusters wrote a scathing piece in The Guardian newspaper on what he thought of clicktivism and what could happen, were it to become the dominant form of activism. He expresses it thusly:
"Gone is faith in the power of ideas, or the poetry of deeds, to enact social change....The end result is the degradation of activism into a series of petition drives that capitalise on current events. Political engagement becomes a matter of clicking a few links. In promoting the illusion that surfing the web can change the world, clicktivism is to activism as McDonalds is to a slow-cooked meal. It may look like food, but the life-giving nutrients are long gone" (Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism 2010).
Well - I think it is pointless fixing on a position in this debate - we are all still learning - though if I had to I would identify with the persistents. A blend of old, new and yet to come appeals.
I have, quite recently, rallied and marched, been immersed in a crowd with the threat of a clash with the authorities. Sang "We Shall Not Be Moved", chanted slogans. Stood with arms linked in the bush, trying to get a point across about saving the beautiful tall trees in my area. Attended the Supreme Court to try and get some recognition for an endangered species. Sat in numerous usually cold venues, hired at the last minute for a rallying huddle or a debate with invited speakers from the 'other side'.
But I've also clicked on numerous online petitions, watched YouTube clips of events that have captured my attention and sometimes ire. I actually think that it doesn't matter how you organise your group, or get a message out. Anyway you can, whatever is possible. New technologies are proving invaluable in connecting people and ideas, but talking to people face-to-face is also. And while studies are being done on the effectiveness of these new tools and methods, activism won't and can't wait, it will forge ahead no matter what.
It can be great fun to look back at the early mobile phones and ask the question - how did they do it?
Carry them around that is!
One man who should not be chortled at is Marty Cooper - the man recognised as the inventor of the cell phone (ABC interview here). It was forty years ago that Cooper, pictured recently below, made a phone call from his two kilogram prototype.
Presently, of course, the cellphone is a much smaller, slimmer device, with capabilites far beyond a voice call. Voice, text, internet access and camera are the main ones, with an ever-growing number of applications for navigation, photo editing, banking, games to name just a few.
Cooper's reaction to the current state of mobile phones is that they are overloaded with functions. He points to the fact that often the manual that comes with the device is larger than the device itself. He puts forward a sentiment that: "Good technology is intuitive - the cellphone" (now) "forces you to become an engineer." [BBC Interview with Marty Cooper]
Mobile devices-most often mobile phones that we use have transformative powers. Some social theorists have stated that "mobile devices are reshaping the way we communicate, interact, work and live" (Ruston & Stein 2005, The work of stories).
We are able to be connected all of the time, as illustrated in this opinion piece from author/writer James Norman, which may strike a familiar chord with many of us. In this article, Norman says that he checks his social media 70+ times a day and starts and finishes his days next to his charging device. Mentioned in this article are two applications 'control' and 'empower', that block access to social media sites in particular, or the internet in general, so that one can 'choose' to be more productive and less distracted when necessary.
I think this says something about the level of engagement many have with their mobile devices.
Always on?
Sherry Turkle, psychologist, sociologist and cultural analyst has spent over 15 years studying the effects of technology on social relationships and our relationship with technology. On the website accompanying her book "Always on: why we expect more from technology and less from each other" (2010) is a quote which deftly captures the double-edged nature of constant connection through technology and the possible emotional toll:
"Technology promises to let us do anything from anywhere with anyone. But it also drains us as we try to do everything everywhere. We begin to feel overwhelmed and depleted by the lives technology makes possible. We may be free to work from anywhere, but we are also prone to being lonely everywhere. In a surprising twist, relentless connection leads to a new solitude. We turn to new technology to fill the void,but as technology ramps up, our emotional lives ramp down" (http://alonetogetherbook.com/).
A few years later in a TEDtalk, Turkle emphasises that she is not anti-technology, but cautionary about mistaking constant online interaction for true intimacy with others.
One other theme she raised was the importance of listening to others - and this is the important part - to even listen to the boring bits. Crabblog concurs with this, believing that boredom is a part of life, to be experienced and to learn from. Boredom stretches our boundaries and can encourage creativity and self-reliance. This BBC story on expectations of constant activity for children and how this can impede development of the imagination taps a growing awareness of the need for downtime.
Turkle's (2012) sentiment is echoed after a fashion, by cyborg anthropologist Amber Case. She worries that we are not taking enough time for mental reflection:
“When you have no external input, that is a time when there is a creation of self, when you can do long-term planning, when you can try and figure out who you really are.”
I believe this is a really important concept to consider and one that was not an issue before the ultra-connectedness that technology and social media have brought to our lives.
Neuroscientist Dr. Susan Greenfield proposes that constant stimulation from computer gaming, may keep the brain in an underdeveloped state:
"...what concerns me is that we are perhaps in some cases -- and I'm saying perhaps -- keeping people's developing minds at the stage of the young child of the boom, banger, bang, of the yuk and the wow of the literal what you see is what you get. You're not seeing things in terms of other things, you don't have a notion of the abstract but what's happening is you're living in a literal world of movement but not of thought" [Future Minds - ABC Radio].
Evolution
Technology is pushing ahead relentlessly. One product, soon to be released to the public - or maybe not - due to the amount of controversy that surrounds it, is Google glasses.
The glasses certainly cut out the fumbling around that often goes hand-in-hand with our current mobile devices, but what about..... Privacy
Here is just one of the spoof clips to be found that take the 'mickey' out of Google's slick and shiny marketing advert. It brings up many legitimate concerns about an environment where, not machines, like CCTV cameras, but people wearing machines, could be recording you by stealth.
One group already has a game plan to resist the challenging capabilities and unknown consequences of Google glasses. Stop The Cyborgs is a group that aims to "stop a future in which privacy is impossible and central control total."
Source: Stop the Cyborgs
All that being said, privacy is already a very real concern and arguably always has been in one form or another. But take a recent example of a self-styled 'citizen journalist', who took a photograph of a crane mechanic working a few buildings away. The 'citizen journalist' had a notion that the crane mechanic was sleeping on the job. He sent the photo to a local radio station, whose host joined in the assumption and this action turned into a news story.
To cut a long story short, the citizen journalist and radio hosts concerns were put to the appropriate union and some quite unfair and unqualified opinions were bandied about.
The upshot was that the crane mechanic was doing his job in the appropriate position, that is, lying down. The radio host was invited up to a great height to observe this, he went, he apologised and now we all know a lot more about crane maintenance than we did before.
This story raised the ire of the crab on a few levels. Firstly, the justification for the concern shown for a man lying down on a ledge next to a crane was that he may have been sleeping. Not that he may have been concussed, or dead - but sleeping on the job. Secondly, the subsequent discussions that then took place over whether or not the mechanic was actually doing his job, showed, in this Crab's opinion, a lack of respect for the individual and his trade. And finally, some questions this story provoked - just because we have the capabilities to take pictures, videos, share and speculate endlessly - should we? In this instance, would a casual observation have been enough? If there was a concern, should it not have been the organisation in charge of the building site, rather than a talk-back radio station that should be called? You can read about this story here and here.
Mobile devices, with camera, messaging and sharing capabilities, make it all too easy to breach another's privacy. After all, we may reasonably expect, in some workplaces, to be observed by our employers, but do we expect this from the general public?
Cyborg
A cyborg is a "merger of human and synthetic components" (Rheingold 2002: 107, Smart mobs: the next social revolution). Perhaps a more user-friendly way of conceptualising a cyborg, is someone with a wearable computer. Google glasses certainly fall into this category. And it is important to note that many of the functionalities of Google glasses have been around for some time, used in medical and military applications, as described in the clip below.
As with most things in life, there are detractors, fence-sitters and enthusiasts. One cyborg enthusiast, is Russian billionaire, Dmitry Itskov.
He has a grand plan with the “ultimate goal" of being able to "transfer a person's mind or consciousness from a living brain into a machine with that person's personality and memories intact. Freed of physical form, the person would exist in a network similar to the Internet and be able to travel at the speed of light all over the planet, or even into space."
He is keen to get this achieved by 2045, and to this end, has written to Ban Ki-Moon to ask him to support a push for his vision. Keen!
Mobile Devices in Developing Countries
Most of this rather long post has been about first world country concerns with mobile technology. News from many developing countries is that mobile telephones are making positive changes to areas that do not have the benefits of landline telephone infrastructure. Through SMS messaging, seriously ill people may be alerted to take medications. Farmers can be competitive, by staying updated on the market price of produce and can now, in some areas, receive a cash transfer by phone for their product.
One Laptop Per Child is a not for profit organisation whose aim is to provide educational materials for the worlds' poorest children. An experiment carried out in whereby solar-charged Motorola Xoom tablets pre-loaded with educational material were dropped in two Ethiopian villages found that children had taught themselves to read without teachers in a matter of weeks.
Mobile Devices for the very young
Children in Australia and in other countries have introduced mini-tablets to their students. Opinion is divided over whether this is a good thing or not.
This blog from a U.S. kindergarten teacher takes us through a typical day and shows how these mobile devices are utilised in this setting. It gives positive support for the use of the devices.
iPads are being used in some Australian kindergartens, with a year-long study recently commenced as to their benefits or not [Article iPad Kindergarten study].
In light of the introduction of mobile devices to children at this level - it would perhaps be wise for all of us to come to grips with what this may mean for our society.
Last word to Marty Cooper...
Since the cell phone's exciting beginnings in 1973, Cooper has not let the grass grow under his feet. He formed a wireless technology and systems company in 1992 that has worked on increasing the coverage and capacity of cell phones and in so doing lowered the costs of use to the consumer. In a BBC interview he said:
"The future of cellular telephony is to make people's lives better - the most important way, in my view, will be the opportunity to revolutionise healthcare."
The physical development of mobile phones which have already downsized considerably from the 'brick': he believes future users will be able to dispense altogether with the device.
"The cellphone in the long range is going to be embedded under your skin behind your ear along with a very powerful computer who is in effect your slave".
.png/224px-Scales_of_Justice_(PSF).png)
.jpg)
