Cyberculture Report Final Draft

Jennie V. Caven

RHE 330C- Dr. Davis

Cyberculture Report

Due: 5/3/11

YOUTube

YouTube is an extension of self on the web. It is a social networking website that allows people to connect through mutual or similar interests, and of course video, which is the service’s primary technological medium. Although YouTube is based on the process of uploading and watching videos, it has much more to offer than just video clips. Through this analysis, I would like to delve deeper into the specifics of YouTube to see what makes it successful, who its users are, what its meeting space entails, what its literacy requirements are, and what its general overall exigency is.

YouTube is a nearly ubiquitous phenomenon of the Internet. Most people in this day and age have experienced YouTube first hand, and the website has the statistics to support this assumption. According to the Website Monitoring Blog, the “average person spends 15 minutes a day on YouTube.” If “35 hours of video are uploaded every minute” (WMB) to the website, the previous statement seems accurate. The influence of YouTube is extremely vast, especially considering it was founded only a short time ago, in 2005. Three ex-PayPal employees launched YouTube: Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim (Hurley), who obviously struck gold with their creation. Google acquired YouTube in 2006 for 1.65 million dollars and the value of YouTube continues to rise. To visualize this massive amount of traffic on the website in other terms, “More video [was] uploaded to YouTube in 60 days than the 3 major US networks created in 60 years” (WMB). YouTube is a defining aspect or turning point in our current cultural construction. The website has shown to be a model of how one technological advancement or creation can have such a major effect on our community as a whole as well as our individual lives.

According to the YouTube website, it has “hundreds of millions of users from around the world” (Hurley). The website is also localized in twenty-four countries and regions and is available in more than 43 languages (Hurley). So who are the users and members of YouTube? Well, apparently everybody or, more precisely, anybody with a connection to the Internet. The general demographic of the YouTube user is broad, with an average age range of members from fifteen to fifty-four years old (Hurley). Anyone can visit the website to browse, search through, and watch videos of all different types and genres without any sort of commitment or revealing of identity. The subscribing members of YouTube, though, must create usernames for themselves in order to upload any videos onto the website. Members who upload videos, or the avatars for these members in this virtual space, are mostly realistic projections of their "real life" selves, especially when they upload videos of themselves to be broadcast to the world. Other members, perhaps those who only subscribe to channels or upload other kinds of videos, can have any type of persona, starting from their creation of a username. Your username can be anything you want it to be; from a boring one that is just your name (like my username) or a creative one, like “HouseholdHacker” or “failblog.” It is possible to make a profile-like page and have people subscribe to your “channel,” so that others can follow your updates and video developments if you are an active user. You can also make money off of the site if you apply to be a “partner” through their partnership program, where companies can advertise on your channel if it becomes popular enough. With its broad and extensive user base, YouTube supports more online-only connections than preexisting offline relations, in comparison to other social networking sites like Facebook, but the site does not discourage preexisting relations by any means.

Many people have made household names for themselves through YouTube, some through a conscious effort, while others without really trying. For example, Pop/R&B singer Justin Bieber is an international super star because he posted videos of himself singing and playing the guitar onto YouTube, he received a lot of “hits” and positive feedback, and a talent agent in the music industry saw how popular he had become through the public site. “An Ontario native, Bieber placed second in a local singing competition in 2007 and began posting contest videos on YouTube. The videos caught the attention of [talent agent and former So So Def marketing executive, Scooter Braun], who helped Bieber gain an impromptu audition with R&B star Usher. Impressed by what he saw, Usher, along with Island Def Jam chairman L.A. Reid, quickly signed the 15-year-old Bieber to a recording contract” (Collar). Bieber is now a legitimate superstar and he collaborates with major celebrity performers like Usher, Kanye West, and Chris Brown. If Bieber had gone the traditional music industry route instead of posting his videos to YouTube, he may not have achieved the stardom he has today. Justin Bieber’s success shows how potent YouTube is as an online platform for ordinary people and how YouTube broadens people’s opportunities.

In a less conscious effort, “David After Dentist” is a video that a father, David DeVore, uploaded onto YouTube of his 9-year old son coming back from the dentist’s office. “The viral clip has been viewed almost 54 million times and gave rise to the catchphrase, ‘Is this real life?’ It was the second most-watched video of 2009, according to YouTube” (Horowitz). The video consists of “a woozy 7-year-old boy in the back seat of a car, struggling to understand the effects of anesthesia” (Horowitz). Devore’s intention seemed to have just been for fun and to make his relatives laugh. “[DeVore] first posted the video on Facebook, but not all his relatives were members of the social-networking site, so he uploaded it to YouTube during the last weekend in January last year, never thinking anyone beside friends and family would watch it. By the next Tuesday, it had been viewed 3 million times. The video has since spawned dozens of parodies, including ‘Chad After Dentist’ and ‘David After The Divorce’” (Horowitz). Despite the innocent intention, the video has been so successful and has gained so many followers that it led DeVore to become a YouTube “partner” and he started making money off of his video. He has a separate website from his YouTube page where you can buy t-shirts featuring the “D.A.D” logo and other things associated with the video. “The video's popularity may also help pay for David's college tuition. The family earns money from licensing use of the video and gets a cut of revenue from the ads placed around the clip on YouTube. They've also started a Web site where they sell T-shirts and other ‘David After Dentist’merchandise” (Horowitz). Apparently, DeVore is making in the low six-figures from everything associated with the video and it has become the family business to promote it. This video shows how YouTube is such a powerful tool for users that it can lead to immense financial success for some participants.

Other users participate on YouTube to make a statement to the public. Many corporations use YouTube to strengthen their support and fan base, and as another outlet to get their messages to the public. For example, the U.S. Marine Corps has its own YouTube page that serves as part of its recruiting efforts (screenshot below). On its YouTube channel, there is a huge, interactive advertisement for joining the U.S. Marines with the slogan, “Your journey into the Corps begins here”("OurMarines's Channel”).

Another organization, British Petroleum, uses YouTube for public relations purposes to improve its corporate image after the company was responsible for a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “BP has created this YouTube channel to engage the public in an informative conversation and dialogue about our efforts associated with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico” ("BPplc's Channel"). The BP channel has coverage of the oil spill disaster and videos about its recovery project in order to win back some of the credibility they had lost because of the disaster. The channel currently has almost 8,000 subscribers. The channel has a whole section on “Beaches and Cleanup” as well as other environmentally conscious sections. Currently, the majority of videos presented on the site are segments called, “Voices from the Gulf” where individuals, restaurant owners, businesses, and others in places affected by the oil spill are talking positively about BP and its recovery efforts (screenshot below).

So the users of YouTube span far and wide, whether they make money off of the site or not. The outrageous and unforgettable videos that incorporate humor or another element that may be out of the ordinary tend to become more successful on YouTube. The corporations with their own YouTube channels use it for support, advertising, and public relations purposes. YouTube is another effective way to get your message out there because of the video medium, but since there are so many users, your company has to be already well known or your video has to be outrageous to receive a substantial amount of following.

The meeting space of YouTube is basically set up as a collection of videos and a search bar. It is asynchronous because it is not possible to play two videos at once, yet there are suggested videos and advertisements on the left side, bottom, and top of the webpage where a user is watching a selected video. When you enter the homepage of YouTube, you can either log in with you user name, search for a video, or browse videos that are divided into a number of different categories. There are linked categories below the search bar and there are still video clips that can be played if you click them below the search bar as well. These video clips are organized into categories like “Most Viewed,” “Sports,” “Entertainment,” “HowTo & Style,” etc. Below is a screen shot of what the YouTube homepage looks like visually.

In order to fully participate on YouTube and engage in everything the site has to offer, one has to be video-literate. The literacy requirements of YouTube involve the ability to create videos, either from a live-streaming computer camera or phone, or the ability to upload videos to the site that have been filmed other ways. It is essential to have a username in order to upload videos, but once that process has been achieved, it is quite simple for any people to upload a video. The website provides tutorials and helpful links for people who struggle with the uploading process, but it is mostly self-explanatory. When entering the site, there are two links that a user can click to the top right by the search bar: “Browse” or “Upload.” If you click “Upload,” you are directed to a page where you can upload your video by a “drop-box” (just clicking your video file and dragging it into a specified area) or by creating a live-streaming video on your computer through the website (if your computer possesses a camera). There is also the option to add a short description of your video to accompany it. Below is a screenshot of how a person can upload a video onto the site.

The second part of YouTube’s literacy requirements is the comments section. The comment section of YouTube holds a wide range of styles. The most consistent similarity between the video comments is that they are brief. This characteristic is almost a requirement because the participants of YouTube go to the site to watch videos, not to read long commentary. The longer the comment, the less likely a user is to read it, or “like” it. The “like” and “dislike” feature that is available for videos is also available for comments, but with the addition of a “reply” feature. The “Top Comments” that have the most “likes” under a video are shown at the very top, and the rest are displayed below, ordered by date submitted. Other than brevity, not much else equalizes the comments included in this section. Some users comment with full, grammatically correct sentences, but that style is not the norm. Most users comment with improper grammar, word usage, misspellings, incomplete sentences, slang terms, etc. The vulgarity of some comments is also quite shocking. The YouTube team will intervene if a comment is too offensive for a majority of people by flagging a comment as spam and removing it, but cursing, slang, and vulgarity is by no means prohibited. It is in some instances even encouraged by the other members because of the many “likes” a comment can receive. For example, a horrible comment I have come across is featured as a “Top Comment” under a video of an overweight boy with a long stick, simulating a Star Wars-like fight by himself. It is a funny video, but the top comment by a user named ‘scraps8899’ reads, “did this guy kill himself?” Later on, ‘johnrey400’ comments, “this guy should kill himself due to embarrassment seriously this guy fail at life.” ‘TheChunkyMonki,’ who makes yet another disparaging comment, writes “I love it when he tripped at the end” and in response, ‘ss5william100’ says, “fatty got tired.” Although these comments do not represent the wide range of dialogue on the site, they are examples of how there is little to no accountability for saying inappropriate or hurtful things that these people would probably not say in person, offline. Overall, it is apparent that you do not need to be intelligent or educated to post a comment to YouTube and since most comments have a degree of anonymity because your username can be anything you choose, you can say whatever you want. And most people do. People say things they would probably not say offline because there is a slim chance of them experiencing consequences from what they post on YouTube, unless from other users who reply to them or “dislike” their comment.

Despite some negativity and vulgarity that occurs on the site, there are many positive technological media that are involved with YouTube. One of the most interesting things about YouTube is that its streaming video feature is embedded in an array of other external websites. Even big news and entertainment media corporations, like NBC and CBS, use YouTube when transferring clips of their movies, news, or television onto their Internet databases. YouTube is overwhelmingly used, known, and popular because it has become the main form of video application and featuring on the Web. YouTube features mobile compatibility and lists “social hub” under their list of characteristics. This “social hub” environment featured in YouTube encompasses a connection to many outside sources. YouTube provides links to Twitter and other social networking sites, as well as mobile applications, wikis, and blogs. As stated earlier, it also serves as a message board-type medium with its comment application.

I believe the exigency of YouTube is to provide a space for people to interact with each other using video as a form of expression and communication and to get one’s message out into the world, whatever that message may be. Chad Hurley, the Co-Founder and CEO of YouTube posted on the YouTube blog page, “Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small” (Hurley). YouTube is the website for the everyman. People from professional film creators to my ten-year old cousin can use and thrive on YouTube. People can get discovered and become international celebrities on YouTube, as in the case of pop-singer Justin Bieber. YouTube is a place to connect with people if you want to use their friend-finding capabilities or show your interests through the “like” feature and the process of naming your “favorites” (or favorite videos). YouTube is also a place where you can just watch anything you want to watch (assuming you’re old enough to watch everything offered because for some videos you have to enter in your birth date in order to have access to them) without identifying yourself or your tastes in any way. YouTube is also an economic powerhouse through its use of advertising in four different formats and its new “Store” feature, where a user can rent movies through the site. YouTube is so widely accepted and enjoyed because of the broad range of interests and freedom the site can offer a user through its standard composition and process.

Works Cited

"BPplc's Channel." YouTube. YouTube.com, 18 May 2011. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. .

Collar, Matt. "Justin Bieber Biography & Awards." Billboard.com. Rovi Corporation. Web. 2 Apr. 2011. .

Horowitz, Etan. "Family Cashing in on 'David After Dentist'" CNNTech. CNN.com, 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 2 Apr. 2011. .

Hurley, Chad. "YouTube & the Online Video Revolution." YouTube Blog. YouTube.com, 14 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Apr. 2011. .

"OurMarines's Channel." YouTube. United States Marine Corps, 4 Sept. 2007. Web. 2 Apr. 2011. .

Website Monitoring Blog. “YouTube Facts & Figures (history & statistics).” 17 May 2010. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. <http://www.website-monitoring.com/blog/2010/05/17/youtube-facts-and-figures-history-statistics/>.

Cyberculture Report 1 Rough Draft

Jennie V. Caven

RHE 330C- Dr. Davis

Cyberculture Report

Due: 4/28/11

YOUTube

YouTube is an extension of YOU on the web. It is a social networking website that allows people to connect with each other through mutual or similar interests, and of course, video, which is its main offering and technological medium. Although YouTube is based on the process of uploading and watching videos, it has much more to offer than just video clips. Through this analysis, I would like to delve deeper into the specifics of YouTube to see what makes it successful, who its users are, what its meeting space entails, what its literacy requirements are, and what its general overall exigency is.

If you have any connection to the Internet at all, you have probably at least heard of YouTube. Most people in this day and age have experienced YouTube first hand, and the website has the statistics to support this assumption. According to the Website Monitoring Blog, the “average person spends 15 minutes a day on YouTube.” If “35 hours of video are uploaded every minute” (YouTube) to the website, the previous statement seems accurate. The influence of YouTube is extremely vast, especially since it was founded only a short time ago, in 2005. Three ex-PayPal employees launched YouTube: Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim (YouTube), who obviously struck gold with their creation. Google acquired YouTube in 2006 for 1.65 million dollars and the value of YouTube continues to rise. To visualize this massive amount of traffic on the website in other terms, “More video [was] uploaded to YouTube in 60 days than the 3 major US networks created in 60 years” (YouTube). YouTube is a defining aspect or turning point in our current cultural construction. The website has shown to be a model of how one technological advancement or creation can have such a major effect on our community as a whole as well as our individual lives.

According to the YouTube website, it has “hundreds of millions of users from around the world” (YouTube). The website is also localized in twenty-four countries and regions and is available in more than 43 languages (YouTube). So who are the users and members of YouTube? Well, apparently everybody, or more precisely, anybody with a connection to the Internet. The general demographic of the YouTube user is broad, the average age range of members being from fifteen to fifty-four years old (YouTube). Anyone can visit the website to browse, search through, and watch videos of all different types and genres without any sort of commitment or revealing of identity. The subscribing members of YouTube, though, must create usernames for themselves in order to upload any videos onto the website. Members who upload videos, or the avatars for these members in this virtual space, are mostly realistic projections of their "real life" selves, especially when they upload videos of themselves to be broadcast to the world. Other members, perhaps those who only subscribe to channels or upload other kinds of videos, can have any type of persona, starting from their creation of a username. Your username can be anything you want it to be; from a boring one that is just your name (like my username) or a creative one, like “HouseholdHacker” or “failblog.” It is possible to make a profile-like page and have people subscribe to your “channel,” so that others can follow your updates and video developments if you are an active user. You can also make money off of the site if you apply to be a “partner” through the “partnership program,” where advertisers can advertise on your channel if it becomes popular enough. With its broad and extensive user base, YouTube supports more online-only connections than preexisting offline relations, in comparison to other social networking sites like Facebook, but the site does not discourage preexisting relations by any means.

Many people have made household names for themselves through YouTube, some through a conscious effort, while others without really trying. Some users have become very successful off of this media platform, which shows what a widespread effect YouTube has on our society. For example, Pop/R&B singer Justin Bieber is an international super star because he posted videos of himself singing and playing the guitar onto YouTube, he received a lot of “hits” and positive feedback, and a talent agent in the music industry saw how popular he had become through the public site. “An Ontario native, Bieber placed second in a local singing competition in 2007 and began posting contest videos on YouTube. The videos caught the attention of [talent agent and former So So Def marketing executive, Scooter Braun], who helped Bieber gain an impromptu audition with R&B star Usher. Impressed by what he saw, Usher, along with Island Def Jam chairman L.A. Reid, quickly signed the 15-year-old Bieber to a recording contract” (Collar). Bieber is now a legitimate superstar and he collaborates with major celebrity performers like Usher, Kanye West, and Chris Brown. If Bieber had gone the traditional music industry route of trying to randomly audition for music corporations instead of posting his videos to YouTube, who knows where he would be right now.

In a less conscious effort, “David After Dentist” is a video that a man, David DeVore, uploaded onto YouTube of his 9-year old son coming back from the dentist’s office. “The viral clip has been viewed almost 54 million times and gave rise to the catchphrase, "Is this real life?" It was the second most-watched video of 2009, according to YouTube” (Horowitz). The video consists of, “a woozy 7-year-old boy in the back seat of a car, struggling to understand the effects of anesthesia” (Horowitz). Devore’s intention seemed to have just been for fun and to make his relatives laugh. “[DeVore} first posted the video on Facebook, but not all his relatives were members of the social-networking site, so he uploaded it to YouTube during the last weekend in January last year, never thinking anyone beside friends and family would watch it. By the next Tuesday, it had been viewed 3 million times. The video has since spawned dozens of parodies, including "Chad After Dentist" and "David After The Divorce”” (Horowitz). Despite the intention, the video was so successful and gained so many followers, that it led DeVore to become a YouTube “partner” and he started making money off of his video. He has a separate website from his YouTube page where you can buy t-shirts featuring the “D.A.D” logo and other things associated with the video. “The video's popularity may also help pay for David's college tuition. The family earns money from licensing use of the video and gets a cut of revenue from the ads placed around the clip on YouTube. They've also started a Web site where they sell T-shirts and other “David After Dentist” merchandise” (Horowitz). Apparently, DeVore is making in the low six-figures from everything associated with the video and it has become the family business to promote it, so the popularity of the video led to the family’s financial success.

Other users participate on YouTube to make a statement to the public. Many corporations use YouTube to strengthen their support and fan base, and as another outlet to get their messages to the public. For example, the U.S. Marine Corps has its own YouTube page that serves as part of its recruiting efforts. On its YouTube channel, there is a huge, interactive advertisement for joining the U.S. Marines with the slogan, “Your journey into the Corps begins here”("OurMarines's Channel”). Below is a screenshot of the Marines channel on YouTube.

Another organization, British Petroleum, uses YouTube for public relations purposes to improve its public image after the company was responsible for a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “BP has created this YouTube channel to engage the public in an informative conversation and dialogue about our efforts associated with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico” ("BPplc's Channel"). The BP channel has coverage of the oil spill disaster and videos about its recovery project in order to win back some of the credibility they had lost because of the disaster. The channel has a whole section on “Beaches and Cleanup” as well as other environmentally conscious sections. Currently, the majority of videos presented on the site are segments called, “Voices from the Gulf” where individuals, restaurant owners, businesses, and others in places affected by the oil spill are talking positively about BP and its recovery efforts. Below is a screenshot of BP’s YouTube channel.

So the users of YouTube span far and wide, whether they make money off of the site or not. The outrageous and unforgettable videos that incorporate humor or another element that may be out of the ordinary tend to become more successful on YouTube. The corporations with their own YouTube channels use it for support, advertising, and public relations purposes. YouTube is another effective way to get your message out there because of the video aspect of the site, but since there are so many users, your company has to be already well known or your video has to be outrageous to receive a substantial amount of following.

The meeting space of YouTube is basically set up as a collection of videos and a search bar. It is asynchronous because it is not possible to play two videos at once, yet there are suggested videos and advertisements on the left side, bottom, and top of the webpage where a user is watching a selected video. When you enter the homepage of YouTube, you can either log in with you user name, search for a video, or browse videos that are divided into a number of different categories. There are linked categories below the search bar and there are still video clips that can be played if you click them below the search bar as well. These video clips are organized into categories like “Most Viewed,” “Sports,” “Entertainment,” “HowTo & Style,” etc. Below is a screen shot of what the YouTube homepage looks like visually.

In order to fully participate on YouTube and engage in everything the site has to offer, one has to be video-literate. The literacy requirements of YouTube involve the ability to create videos, either from a live-streaming computer camera or phone, or the ability to upload videos to the site that have been created other ways. It is essential to have a username in order to upload videos, but once that process has been achieved, it is quite simple for any people to upload a video of themselves or of something else. The website provides tutorials and helpful links for people who struggle with the uploading process, but it is mostly self-explanatory. When entering the site, there are two links that a user can click to the top right by the search bar: “Browse” or “Upload.” If you click “Upload,” you are directed to a page where you can upload your video by a “drop-box” (just clicking your video file and dragging it into a specified area) or by creating a live-streaming video on your computer through the website (if your computer possesses a camera). There is also the option to add a short description of your video to accompany it. Below is a screenshot of how a person can upload a video onto the site, if they have a username.

The second part of YouTube’s literacy requirements is the comments section. The comment section of YouTube holds a wide range of styles. The most consistent similarity between the video comments is that they are brief. This characteristic is almost a requirement for comments because the participants of YouTube go to the site to watch videos, not to read long commentary, and the longer the comment, the less likely a user is to read it, or “like” it. The “like” and “dislike” feature that is available for videos is also available for comments, but with the addition of a “reply” feature. The “Top Comments” that have the most “likes” under a video are shown at the very top, and the rest are displayed below, ordered by date submitted. Other than brevity, not much else equalizes the comments included in this section. Some users comment with full, grammatically correct sentences, but that style is not the norm. Most users comment with improper grammar, word usage, misspellings, incomplete sentences, slang terms, etc. The vulgarity of some comments is also quite shocking. The YouTube team will intervene if a comment is too offensive for a majority of people by “flagging a comment as spam” and removing it, but cursing, slang, and vulgarity is by no means prohibited. It is in some instances even encouraged by the other members because of the many “likes” a comment can receive. For example, a horrible comment I have come across is featured as a “Top Comment” under a video of an overweight boy with a long stick, simulating a Star Wars-like fight by himself. It is a funny video, but the top comment by a user named “scraps8899” reads, “did this guy kill himself?” Another comment later on, made by “johnrey400” is, “this guy should kill himself due to embarrassment seriously this guy fail at life.” Yet another comment is, “I love it when he tripped at the end” by “TheChunkyMonki” and in response, “ss5william100” says, “fatty got tired.” Although these comments do not represent the wide range of comments on the site, they are examples of how there is little to no accountability for saying inappropriate or hurtful things that these people would probably not say in person, offline. Overall, it is apparent that you do not need to be intelligent or educated to post a comment to YouTube and since most comments have a degree of anonymity because your username can be anything you choose, you can say whatever you want. And most people do. People say things they would probably not say offline because there is a slim chance of them experiencing consequences from what they post on YouTube, unless from other users who reply to them or “dislike” their comment.

Despite some negativity and vulgarity that occurs on the site, there are many positive technological mediums that are involved with YouTube. One of the most interesting things about YouTube is that its streaming video feature is embedded in an array of other external websites. Even big news and entertainment media corporations, like NBC and CBS, use YouTube when transferring clips of their movies, news, or television onto their Internet databases. YouTube is overwhelmingly used, known, and popular because it has become the main form of video application and featuring on the Web. YouTube features mobile compatibility and list “social hub” under their list of characteristics. This “social hub” environment featured in YouTube encompasses a connection to many outside sources. YouTube provides links to Twitter and other social networking sites, as well as mobile applications, wikis, and blogs. As stated earlier, it also serves as a message board-type medium with its comment application.

I believe the exigency of YouTube is to provide a space for people to interact with each other using video as a form of expression and communication and to get ones message out into the world, whatever that message may be. Chad Hurley, the Co-Founder and CEO of YouTube posted on the YouTube blog page, “Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small” (YouTube). YouTube is the website for the everyman. People from professional film creators to my ten-year old cousin can use and thrive on YouTube. People can get discovered and become international celebrities on YouTube, as in the case of pop-singer Justin Beiber. YouTube is a place to connect with people if you want to use their friend-finding capabilities or show your interests through the “like” feature and the process of naming your “favorites” (or favorite videos). YouTube is also a place where you can just watch anything you want to watch (assuming you’re old enough to watch everything offered because for some videos you have to enter in your birth date in order to have access to them) without identifying yourself or your tastes in any way. YouTube is also an economic powerhouse through its use of advertising in four different formats and its new “Store” feature, where a user can rent movies through the site. YouTube is so widely accepted and enjoyed because of the broad range of interests and freedom the site can offer a user through its standard composition and process.

Works Cited

"BPplc's Channel." YouTube. YouTube.com, 18 May 2011. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. .

Collar, Matt. "Justin Bieber Biography & Awards." Billboard.com. Rovi Corporation. Web. 2 Apr. 2011. .

Horowitz, Etan. "Family Cashing in on 'David After Dentist'" CNNTech. CNN.com, 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 2 Apr. 2011. .

Hurley, Chad. "YouTube & the Online Video Revolution." YouTube Blog. YouTube.com, 14 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Apr. 2011. .

"OurMarines's Channel." YouTube. United States Marine Corps, 4 Sept. 2007. Web. 2 Apr. 2011. .

Website Monitoring Blog. “YouTube Facts & Figures (history & statistics).” 17 May 2010. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. <http://www.website-monitoring.com/blog/2010/05/17/youtube-facts-and-figures-history-statistics/>

Crowdsource Grading

In her online essay “How to Crowdsource grading,” Cathy Davidson describes the problem with the conventional grading system in schools and offers her solution. Davidson shares that she “can't think of a more meaningless, superficial, cynical way to evaluate learning in a class on new modes of digital thinking (including rethinking evaluation) than by assigning a grade” (Davidson). She explains how grading from the professor makes learning into too much of a competition. Instead of encouraging students to be curious and enjoy learning, conventional grading makes them try to figure out how to get the best grade while doing the least amount of work, which is the complete opposite goal of schooling.

Her solution lies in a peer-to-peer grading system. Davidson encourages a point system where her commentary as well as peer review will amount to the grade. She says, “you do the assignment satisfactorily, you get the points. Add up the points, there's your grade. Clearcut. No guesswork. No second-guessing 'what the prof wants.' No gaming the system. Clearcut. Student is responsible” (Davidson). The only problem with this method is the question of how you judge quality. Davidson answers this question with her description of “crowdsourcing.” In her classroom, two students lead discussion every day. All the students can read all the class blogs and pass judgment on whether the blogs posted by their fellow classmates meet the standards of the class. The students can also revise their contributions if they receive a negative review. Davidson argues that, “what this teaches my students is responsibility, credibility, judgment, honesty, and how to offer good criticism to one's peers--and, in turn, how to receive it” (Davidson).

In this digital age, crowdsource grading provides a more meaningful and effective learning environment for students, in Davidson’s opinion. She offers support for her argument by stating that there are multiple studies showing that students perform better in the classroom when they are aware that their grade depends on peer evaluation, more so than when they are just submitting assignments to a teacher. Davidson says, I think it is because grading, in a curious way, exemplifies our deepest convictions about excellence and authority, and specifically about the right of those with authority to define what constitutes excellence. If we “crowdsource grading,” we are suggesting that those without authority can also determine excellence. That is what happens in the non-refereed world of the Internet, that’s what digital thinking is, and it is quite revolutionary” (Davidson). Cognition has to be interpreted differently in a “customizing, process-oriented, collaborative online public environment” (Davidson). She emphasizes the importance of individuals contributing to the whole of a group and how this kind of new grading scale will prepare students more adequately for the future in the ever-advancing online, collaborative environment.

One of the problems with this approach to grading is that it seems like this system couldn’t apply to a larger classroom. With large classes, like the ones at UT that have 100-400 people in them, how could a teacher possibly keep track of who has commented on whose blog post and who voted yes or no to their peer-led discussion. If someone can come up with a good, legitimate way for this process and avoid students from forming teams to cheat the system, then I think this grading system is a great idea. How could this system apply to a large classroom?

eXistenZ 2: Repetition and Symbolism

Although eXistenZ is far from my favorite movie, I can appreciate the intellectual constructions and metaphors included in the film for their worth, without actually liking the film itself. Certain aspects of eXistenZ present interesting questions about life and society as well as gender roles and free will. These questions as well as the film’s overall message are illustrated by the film’s use of rhetorical tactics.

Some of the rhetorical tactics featured in eXistenZ are repetition and symbolism. These elements work together to make the film’s message both clearer and more persuasive. Repetition is an important tactic used in the film in order to call the audience’s attention to certain elements and to highlight particular scenes or events that are significant. For example, the phrase, “Death to the Demon(ess) [whoever the game creator is at the time]” is repeated several times throughout the film. This repetition calls attention to the idea that the person who creates a virtual reality separate from actual reality is a demon and should be destroyed. Also, Allegra repeats multiple times that the only way she can see if someone has damaged her game is to play it with “somebody friendly,” while referring to Pikul. I’m not sure if this is foreshadowing that Pikul is not somebody friendly because he is her intended assassin at the end of their time in the eXistenZ game, or that he’s not friendly because he is a killer outside of the game as well. These elements add to the characterization included in the film as well as its overall message of what is significant.

eXistenZ also uses symbolism to convey its main point. All of the technologies featured in the eXistenZ virtual game are made out of flesh and bone, or at least look like human or animal parts. These images contribute to the message that in this setting, man and machine do not only co-exist but they are intertwined. There is no separation between meat and metal in this environment, especially with elements like the “bioport” and the gun made out of flesh and bone.

I think these aspects of the movie are intellectually stimulating, yet I think the film creators went about it the wrong way. Although this film is not meant to appeal to the general audience, the inclusion of such graphic images and grotesque scenes made it difficult to focus on the overall message, in my opinion. My question is: do you agree? If so, how could the film be improved so that it maintains the same message while generating more mass appeal? Or, would a more appealing film dilute the message it is trying to convey by taking away the shock factor?

S/R Paper 3: eXistenZ

In his film, eXistenZ, David Cronenberg presents a world where it is hard to distinguish between reality and a virtual game. The plot presents many twists and turns for the viewer, so it is hard to decipher exactly what happened, especially with the ambiguous ending. The film begins with the introduction of people participating in a trial run of a virtual reality game, designed by Cronenberg’s main character Allegra Gellar. She is introduced as the world’s best game creator and her new game, eXistenZ, is operated by a pod that connects into a player’s spine through a “bioport.” When the trial run begins, a man shoots Allegra with a gun made out of amphibian bones with human teeth for bullets. A marketing trainee for the company, Ted Pikul, helps Allegra escape the scene and the two of them go on the run from “Realists” who have a bounty on Allegra’s death. The only copy of her masterpiece game exists on Allegra’s pod, which has been damaged by the gunshot. In order to figure out if the game itself is damaged, she needs to play with “someone friendly,” which turns out to be Pikul after she convinces him to receive a bioport. When they play the game, they meet many characters who lead them to different places like a factory, a mutant farm, and Chinese restaurant, where Pikul makes a gun out of his ordered “special” and has the urge to kill Allegra. He kills the waiter instead and later on, he tries to kill her because he is a spy for the Realists. Allegra claims to have known this already and had injected a bomb into Pikul when she was “curing his infected bioport.” Allegra apparently wins the game with the deaths of the other characters, but is unclear if she is in a game or in reality. At the end of the film, viewers find out that all of the film’s characters are actually people participating in a trial run of a new game, tranCendenZ, and that Cronenberg’s main characters are actually people ideologically against tranCendenZ. Allegra and Pikul take real guns, hidden under a dog’s fur, and shoot the real game designer, saying he should suffer for creating the “most effective deforming of reality.” Before they shoot another participant, he asks, “Wait tell me the truth, are we still in the game?” The ending is left up to the viewer to decide if the characters are in reality or if they are still in some sort of virtual game.

eXistenZ, both the film and the game, serve as a metaphor for everyday life in our reality. The film’s main argument is that social constructions, ideologies, and cultural programs have coded our perception and cognition just as much as computer programs and technological games do. Pikul comments that “free will is obviously not a big factor in this little world of ours” when talking about their game lives because of the many processes they have to go through to get from one point to the next. Allegra responds, “like real life, there’s just enough to make it interesting.” Everything we experience is perceived through the lenses that others have forced upon us and no one is ever actually experiencing an independent “reality” with total control over their lives in this age of cultural influence and technological advancement. At one point, Pikul tells Allegra that he is uneasy and uncomfortable in his virtual game surroundings because the “rules and objectives are unknown” and that he’s “always being exposed to unknown forces that we don’t understand, that could kill us.” Allegra responds that this is “a game everybody’s already playing.” In reality, we are all exposed to dangers and we never know what will happen in the future, so we are already playing the game of life every day. The life in eXistenZ mirrors reality by making a rhetorical point about how people live their lives and view their existences. In eXistenZ and in real life, “you have to play the game to find out why you’re playing the game” because no one gives you all of the answers at the beginning and you don’t know your goal in life until the end, if you figure it out at all.

The New Digital Divide

In Marcia Stepanek’s The New Digital Divide, she discusses the contrast between what people hoped the Internet would provide and what it does currently. The old digital divide used to be interpreted as an exclusion of access to the Internet because of the cost of a computer and the limits on use for people without one. Now that almost everyone has access to the Internet, the new digital divide involves a separation between what the hopes of the Internet would be and what it is becoming with a surge in social networking sites and corporate filtering.

The hopes of the ideal Internet include a forum for social change, where a person could participate in any kind of conversation or interaction and wouldn’t have to be limited by social constructions. “In the early days of the Web, social innovators predicted it would spawn a more open and democratic society” (Stepanek). The idea of the new digital divide involves a division of people and purpose on the Web instead of the old idea of exclusion to access. Companies that shape the Internet have begun using filters and customization methods to point people in the direction of things they have already searched for. “Trouble is, these new levels of data-personalization, along with the growth of social networks that we use to self-aggregate, are threatening to hamper civic engagement” (Stepanek).

This threat on civic engagement is due to “hashtags” that are “being used to collate and segment different conversations by topic [and] also may be keeping many people out of the social networking site’s most popular and/or important conversations” (Stepanek). So without these “hashtags” on the Internet, it is easier to see and find different viewpoints from one’s own by chance. With these hashtags, the Internet is leading us away from this opportunity by directing our search results. Influential Internet companies are making it easier to live in a world where we only interact with people similar to us and are not exposed to differing opinions or experiences.

This problem has further reaching implications. For example, there is clear racial segregation on the Web and on social networking sites like Twitter. This fact is “[…] starting to keep us from being exposed to a surge of new information and ideas -- and chiefly, viewpoints that may differ from our own” (Stepanek). We don’t always choose these segregations either. “Often, these "filter bubbles" keep information from us without our specific permission -- and worse, without our knowledge” (Stepanek). Stepanek concludes that “we must work harder to break out of these self-imposed (or machine-imposed) comfort zones if we're to affect social change” (Stepanek) and that we need to make the Internet a more hospitable place for social engagement. We also need to dismantle hierarchies that are encouraged by social networking sites and the like. The Internet was not created as a forum to transfer societal perceptions, biases, and constructs into a new setting. The early hopes of the Internet involved a more democratic society.

My question is: since many people don’t realize that this process is occurring (where people are not as exposed as they used to be to differing opinions on the Internet and that hashtags and customization methods are occurring without our knowledge of it), should there be legal implications involved? Should the government start restricting companies like Google and Facebook and leave the control back in the consumer’s hands?

Augmented Reality: Facial Recognition?

Honestly, I am a little torn with the issue of Augmented Reality, or AR. I think this kind of technology is extremely intriguing (and cool), but I also think that it can be a detriment to our privacy as individuals and as citizens. It’s hard enough to control what goes on the internet about you because of Facebook photos that your friends upload and blogs people may mention you in, but if that information is available without real effort from someone else (it just shows up when someone points a phone at your face) I think that could be a potential problem.

On the one hand, these smart phone and computer applications make the transmission and retrieval of information, pertinent or not, more easily available to the public. It eliminates multiple steps involved with retrieving information, taking most of the effort out of the entire process. A positive result of this fact could be that more people get involved with politics or other important issues. With the availability of information and with its ease in transmission, people can actually see how political decisions affect them individually. For example, one application “lets you point your handheld and get an overlay on the screen that shows how bailout dollars have been spent in your neighborhood” (Benkoil). Seeing how money is spent in your area, with a specific application, at the time that you think about the subject can help people grasp how vague political concepts directly apply to their lives. The fundamental principle of democracy is involvement and AR could potentially get people more politically involved.

Also, AR can help save, or at least partially repair, the floundering of the print magazine industry. People in the industry have been searching for ways to keep print journalism from disappearing and have yet to come up with a definitive answer. “Other AR applications can live on computers, like one Esquire magazine plans to use next month that will let readers hold the December issue up to their computers’ cameras to get moving images of what they’re reading, such as an actor removing layers of clothes for a fashion story about dressing for the weather. Turning the magazine will trigger other actions, The Wall Street Journal reports, such as making it appear to snow” (Benkoil). These are extremely smart ideas, if they catch on, because they force the consumer to buy the print version of the magazine as well as going about their normal processes of online interaction. AR could be a solution to the crumbling of the magazine industry by becoming the “direct mail of the 21^st century” (Benkoil).

On the other hand, the availability of information without effort can lead to loss of jobs, especially middlemen type jobs. Real estate agents could lose their jobs because with these apps, a person looking for an apartment in a certain area only has to go around with his or her smart phone and can talk directly to sellers without involving an agent at all. The number of travel agents has declined in the past years with the Internet and the ease of personally booking reservations and finding deals. This AR technology will make processes like this even easier.

In addition, AR technology seems very invasive of privacy on multiple levels. “How about facial recognition software to give information about a source a journalist is talking to?” (Benkoil). That seems like an informative idea, but it also seems like an invasion of privacy and of personal rights. Anything about facial recognition technology gives me the creeps and I don’t think anyone other than our police forces and CIA should be able to use that kind of technological capability. Isn’t that illegal, anyway? The fact that gliches haven’t been solved in these kind of technologies furthers my suspicion that they won’t work properly and could be a major detriment to someone’s life.

Do you think that the whole-hearted acceptance of these kind of technologies, especially facial recognition technologies, encourages our society to view actions that are previously thought of as creepy and stalker-ish, to become more the norm instead of the exception?

S/R Paper 2: Neuromancer

In his novel, Neuromancer, William Gibson illustrates a futuristic world where there is thin line between man and machine, or 'meat and metal.' Gibson’s main character, Case, is a former virtual cowboy, who “jacked into a custom cyberspace deck that projected his disembodied consciousness into the consensual hallucination that was the matrix” (5), until he stole from his employers. His employers, in retaliation, damaged his nervous system with mycotoxins (6) so that he could not continue doing what he does best, which is corporate thievery in cyberspace. “Case fell into the prison of his own flesh” (6) and he became a drug addict in a wasteland, until he meets Molly and Armitage. Armitage is a shell of a man named Corto, who is the sole survivor of a purposely failed, government mission called Screaming Fist. Molly is a bodyguard who is physically upgraded through technology. Armitage offers Case a way out of his cyberspace-deprived living by temporarily fixing Case's nervous system, so that Arnmitage can use his hacking abilities. The team’s run on the corporation Sense/Net, results in the successful heist of the ROM construct of McCoy Pauley, or “Dixie Flatline.” “…Think of the Flatline as a construct, a hardwired ROM cassette replicating a dead man’s skills” (76). The Flatline and Case work together in the matrix to complete subsequent missions in Istanbul, Zion, and then Freeside, and also to find information on Armitage’s boss. Case discovers Armitage is working for Tessier-Ashpool’s, AI (artificial intelligence) named Wintermute, who contacts Case on multiple occasions through people in Case’s memory and causes Case to flatline. Wintermute’s main objective is to merge with another T-A AI, Neuromancer, so that it can become more intelligent, something usually prevented by the Turing police. “…What you think of as Wintermute is only part of another, a shall we say, potential entity” (120). Riviera, a holographic drug addict, and Maelcum, a Zionite, become members of the team and help infiltrate the Villa Straylight, Tessier-Ashpool’s headquarters. Their mission is successful and Wintermute merges with Neuromancer to become “the matrix” (269).

What I find interesting about this text is the concept presented about the creation of another self in cyberspace. In Convergence Culture, Jenkins touches on this subject with his discussion of an online and offline persona. In Neuromancer, cyberspace itself is described as an experience much like the human reality. Regarding simstim, “the cyberspace matrix was actually a drastic simplification of the human sensorium” (55). The novel presents the idea that one’s personality can be copied and can exist in another dimension or medium that differs from reality. The first representation of this idea is the introduction of the ROM construct of Dixie Flatline, a being that is dead in the bodily, human sense, but is still ‘alive’ in cyberspace. After Case asks the Flatline how he’s doing, Dixie Flatline responds, “I’m dead Case. Got enough time in on this Hosaka [computer] to figure that one (105). The Flatline’s only desire is to be erased at the end of the mission. Case mentions the Flatline’s non-laugh that gives Case a creepy shiver down his spine because it is an attempt at laughter but is an eerie sensation instead. In the end of the novel, Case sees his own copy in cyberspace that mirrors the Flatline’s ROM construct. “Linda still wore his jacket; she waved, as he passed. But the third figure, close behind her, arm across her shoulders, was himself. Somewhere, very close, the laugh that wasn’t laughter” (271). Even though Case’s connection to Linda Lee is extremely strong throughout the novel, Case chooses to leave a virtual eternity of RAM construct happiness with Linda Lee on a majestic beach to return to his bodily reality. In this instance and in others in the novel, I think Gibson is trying to illustrate an age-old belief in a drastically new way or setting. In my opinion, Gibson is showing that mortality is a defining factor of human existence and that it is better to live a full human life and die than to live a half-life in eternity.

Neuromancer, post 2

""Can you read my mind, Finn?” He grimaced. “Wintermute, I mean.”
“Minds aren’t read. See, you’ve still got the paradigms print gave you, and you’re barely print literate. I can access your memory, but that’s not the same as your mind”” (Gibson, 170).

I think this exchange in Neuromancer is fascinating because it has so many possible implications or interpretations. When first reading the passage, I thought that it was interesting that Wintermute referenced the “paradigms print gave [Case],” which I took to mean the norms in thinking and processing that we all acquire from childhood teachings. Wintermute then goes on to say that Case is barely print literate, which would be hard for my parents to envision, but is sadly getting easier to imagine with the disintegration of print journalism, the popularization of electronic text, electronic books, and basically electronic everything. It’s intriguing to think about a world where print literacy is obsolete, but I guess that’s the kind of world that Gibson is creating for us through his descriptions and writing style.

In addition, the above passage mentions the clear distinction between memory and mind. Since the introduction of Dixie Flatline into the story, I have been conflicted about the whole concept of ROM and RAM construction and how a person’s entire personality could possibly be recorded or transferred onto a machine. I had come to the conclusion that this was just science fiction and that this process could not be possible because one important aspect of being human is the fact that we grow, learn, and change our perspective on things because of our human experiences. If my personality was transferred right now into a construct, there is no way that the construct would remain being “me” electronically, because I’m not going to be the same person in five years. My mind is going to change with the new memories I make from my future human experiences. So, I think it’s interesting that even though Gibson indirectly reiterates his question of what is human or what is alive, the real question is, if it is alive, who is it?

Neuromancer, Ch. 1-9

The thing that really interests me about Neuromancer, by William Gibson, is the way Gibson redefines the relationship between technology and nature. As we discussed in class, this novel sets a tone from the beginning where technology is used to define nature instead of the other way around, in language, description, and narrative. Many authors provide a physical description of their characters to match or be similar to aspects of the character’s personality, but Gibson takes this idea a step further with his futuristic take on physical appearance and its new partnership with technology. I find it really interesting that the Modern’s suits change colors like a hologram, reflecting their personalities as being extremely multi-faceted and susceptible to passing trends and fads. They are only looking out for themselves and their suits show that sentiment by projecting alternative visuals to different people at certain times or angles. Another example, Molly, has a quick, strong, and sharp personality, clearly represented by the piercing blades that come out of her fingers. She is also a little vulnerable and strives to stay in control, which is parallel to her use of glasses that are surgically encased in her head.

One aspect of this novel that interests me is its attempt to distance itself as far away from the current reality as possible, yet it still projects some age-old associations. Even with its changed, advanced environment through technology, some associations remain intact and even encouraged throughout the book. For example, religion and terrorism are inevitably linked. From the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to 9/11, terrorism has been historically linked to religion in our reality. In Neuromancer, the Moderns use the cover of a militant Christian sect to scapegoat the chaos that takes place in Sense/Net. Also, this novel is supposed to be set years and years in the future, yet the middle eastern treatment and view towards women is the same or similar as it is currently and historically. This is exemplified when the Armenian is surprised that Case and the Finn have informed Molly about their plan of action and also his shock of her high involvement in the mission. I would think that in a world where the written language has become obsolete, these old associations would disintegrate or at least become passé.

With his inclusion of these associations, was Gibson just including certain ideas that would make his far-out novel become more relatable to the current reader, or do you think that he meant something else by including these little asides? If Gibson didn’t mean anything by it and you think my question is irrelevant, my other question would be: how do you think accepted trends, social norms, or historical associations would break down with this sort of advancement in technology? Would our society change dramatically with the drastic change in the way we relate to each other and with the giant leap in technological creation? What ideologies or accepted beliefs would break down and which ones would persist? It’s impossible to tell, but interesting to think about. What’s strong enough to last?

Convergence and the Music Industry

We all know the dilemma facing the current music industry with regards to file sharing and piracy. The music industry as a whole has lost millions from the evolution of file sharing: from the very beginning, to Napster, to Kazaa and Acquisition, to downloading mp3s from YouTube, and so on. The music industry has changed dramatically with these technological advances and medium offerings, but we are informed about this mostly from the big producing conglomerates that provide the music through legal means and have come up with new ways to attempt to bounce back, like with iTunes for example. My question is: what are the musicians and creative artist’s responses to this piracy? How has piracy and our new culture of free sharing and collaborating through the Web affected their process of creating or distributing music?

I think the music and entertainment industry will always change, evolve, and grow, but it is interesting to think about how our virtual, sharing culture will affect the creative artists that we love so much and how the audience will respond to their potential recoil. One of the chapters in Jenkins’ Convergence Culture discusses how some television shows are courting the idea of subscription-based television, where the show would not be edited for content or air time and it would basically be the fans supporting the production of the show. Will this idea be explored for music?

FRONTLINE, a journalistic site for PBS, has industry information and response on this topic. “Similarly, Los Angeles DJ Nic Harcourt worries about the effect of the business environment on new artists. "It just saddens me that there are people whose careers are, you know, basically put on hold because of the way the music business operates, or who never get an opportunity to really develop artists, because those days are gone," he tells FRONTLINE” (Wiser). Does our virtual environment stifle the progress of the artists we love and support? Also, does our sharing culture stifle upcoming artists and result in their dismissal before they even have a chance to perform for us?

On the other hand, is it positive or negative that we are putting more pressure on artists to deliver and make every song a quality creation instead of just two or three singles on the whole CD? “However, not everyone argues that industry consolidation will cause the quality of music to suffer. "I think that great artists are going to find an audience regardless of what the media is and regardless of what the big record companies are," says Danny Goldberg, chairman and CEO of Artemis Records. "There's still enough oxygen in the society to nourish certain kinds of geniuses. The Bob Dylan of the future will somehow find an audience in this era."” (Wiser).

This brings up the question of why making your new album free on the Internet for your fans (or “leaking it”) has become such a popular trend. Is it because the selling of their actual songs is not a legitimate source of income anymore? Is it really just the advertising industry that pays for all of the bills now? That and I guess going on concert tours (which are usually sponsored by big advertising conglomerates) would help support the artists. Furthermore, are artists trying to act selfless, cool, and “all about the music, not the money” when they leak their new creations online, or are they just promoting themselves because they know selling their songs will not get them much return, but good publicity and advertising will? If some artists aren’t backed by Coca-Cola, will we have to resort to a subscription-like model in order to support our bands?

Basically, my question is: does this change in power from media conglomerates to fans and the change in industry environment through our virtual, collaborative culture stifle the creative drive of artists or does it spur innovation and progress?

Here is the FRONTLINE source:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/inside/faqs.html

Brown Article: Community vs. Individual Identity

In his article, “Evil Bert Laden: ViRaL Texts, Community, and Collision,” James J. Brown, Jr. analyzes the definition of “community” through the aftermath of the Bert Laden photo scandal. Brown emphasizes that our interpretation of community and practices of interpretation must change “as we are forced to deal with ViRaL texts in a globalized, networked world” (Brown).

Brown argues that when we try so hard to interpret what something shocking or confusing means, we miss some of the importance of the event itself. In other words, when we try to interpret something like the Bert Laden photo being printed on controversial protest posters, we need to recognize the significance of our interpretation of the event, not just try to figure out what the photo means for our culture. “When a ViRaL text is interpreted only in the interest of coherent meaning and intention, we miss an opportunity to re-examine the roots of the interpretive impulse” (Brown). It turns out that the photo did not purposely mean anything, or rather, it was not an intentional attempt to provide symbolic commentary on Western culture; it was just a product of a “hasty Google search by a company printing posters” (Brown). The real significance of such an event is not the photo, but the fact that our culture is so globalized and connected that something like this could happen by chance. “In addition to seeking out a particular meaning behind this kind of text, we might also recognize the importance of the very possibility that Bert and bin Laden can collide and collude on the Web. The Web’s structure sets up a situation in which Bert and bin Laden can be in-community with one another, regardless of any choice on the part of Easterners or Westerners” (Brown). Because of the Internet, many more people are interacting on the same platform whether they realize it or not and this changes our whole notion of what community means. “Traditionally, “community” has been understood in terms of collaboration and the conscious efforts of a group to “get together.” However, the circulation of the Bert Laden image gives us a paradigmatic example of how such conceptions of community and collaboration can be expanded when we examine what is happening on the Web” (Brown).

I thought it was particularly interesting when Brown was describing the notion of the “unchosen community” and what it is comprised of in this modern age of connectedness. Brown suggests that community on the Web is an unconscious occurrence, something that “happens to us” (Brown) instead of something that we consciously do. “When we think of collaboration, we might envision a cohesive group that slowly works toward a common goal. Yet, the Web allows for collaboration across space and time, collaboration that happens amongst people with different (and sometimes competing) agendas, and collaboration amongst those who never intended to be working together” (Brown). Brown goes further to explain that conscious communities only form because of unconscious ones. “…It is the collisions that remind us that such conscious collaboration and coalescing happens only in response to our constant predicament of being in-community with a broad range of others” (Brown). This convergence culture has significant implications on our traditional interactions with each other and our notion of identity.

Most people currently have a clear idea of who they are, what culture they belong to, and what that culture represents, but with so much mixing and interacting through the Internet, the idea can become hazy. “For this reason, “the degree of autonomy of each culture is significantly reduced as a consequence of the global information network, and at the same time, the task of constructing a planetary culture is posed” (2006:9)” (Brown). A planetary culture, in Brown’s opinion, could lead to an “opening” towards peace because of the rise in collaboration between people of differing backgrounds. What would we, as individuals, be like in a planetary culture, or how would we change (assuming we do change)? Would we begin to have stronger bonds to communities far away from us geographically in comparison to the communities we are already involved in offline? Would our sense of self change, with a change in cultural ties?

My Political Communication class has called my attention to the many symbols, texts, and ideologies that have power over us as Americans. Most of them we unconsciously respect because they have been engrained in our heads from birth, like not letting an American flag touch the ground, tipping servers, or taking your hat off in class as a sign of respect. The many cultures we are interacting with through the Web have their own characteristics that create a sense of loose unity and identity between individuals, different from our own characteristics. But what happens when there actually is no separation between “us” and “them”? Would we still take pride in the things that hold us together as a national culture? (Not that tipping servers holds us together as a national culture, it’s just an example of one of the things we unconsciously do that other cultures may not necessarily- like Great Britain).

Jenkins, Conclusion: Social Participation

The concluding chapter of Convergence Culture focuses on the empowerment of consumers and communities through convergence culture, if they decide to actively participate in it.

Jenkins argues that popular culture serves as a platform for other, more significant, changing environments. Throughout his book, Jenkins applies certain concepts to case studies in popular media in order to demonstrate how our relationship to media is changing, without forgetting the broader implications of these changes. “What we learn through spoiling Survivor or remaking Star Wars may quickly get applied to political activism or education or the workplace” (Jenkins, 257). Convergence affects the changing environment of our culture as a whole, not just in popular media. This idea is also significant because popular culture and other areas of life, like political activism, are intersecting in a way they never have before.

An example included in the chapter is Al Gore’s attempt to “democratize television,” with his creation of an interactive news cable network called Current. “Gore held firm in his belief that enabling audience-generated content had the potential to diversify civic discourse” (Jenkins, 253). In this way, Gore is trying to solicit participation in the political sector through non-traditional forms of interaction with televised media. Another example of how our community interaction is changing is Wikipedia. Jenkins describes Wikipedia as an “adhocracy,” or a system of shifting leadership roles that lacks hierarchy, where everyone is equal overall. In reference to Wikipedia, Jenkins describes how the website is shifting the ideals and credentials of “expertise,” and that “adhocracy principles have been embraced by the open-source movement, where software engineers worldwide collaborate on projects for the common good” (Jenkins, 265). Older generations view Wikipedia as an illegitimate source of information for academia, but with a changing cultural environment, new perspectives on technological advances are necessary. To become full participants in our society, citizens must view this active collaboration as well as media reform movements as opportunities for change and not obstacles.

The uncertainty about these technological advances and this encouragement of participation is the question of how the general public will respond. Will everyone embrace convergence and participatory culture or will it be something left to a new kind of participatory elite? Jenkins asks, “whether the public is ready to push for greater participation or willing to settle for the same old relations to mass media” (Jenkins, 254). Furthermore, if not everyone participates, how will the non-participants be treated in the coming future? Can they even be involved? According to Jenkins, “A man with one machine (a TV) is doomed to isolation, but a man with two machines (a TV and a computer) can belong to a community (Jenkins, 256).

I think the most interesting factor in convergence culture is the principles by which we will relate to one another. Jenkins says, “We are trying to hammer out the ethical codes and social contracts that will determine how we will relate to one another just as we are trying to determine how this power will insert itself into the entertainment system or into the political process” (Jenkins, 256). The ways in which we interact change with the technological advances, but I think the rules or benefits of social interaction remain the same. Jenkins says, “The Long Trail model assumes an increasingly savvy media consumer, one who will actively seek out content of interest and who will take pride in being able to recommend that content to friends” (Jenkins, 263). The process of seeking content to recommend to friends feeds into the concept of basic human ideals. Some of the reasons people interact are so that they can feel accepted or have a sense of belonging, to discover hope and enlightenment through acquiring new information, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to get a general sense of happiness through social interaction. Convergence culture will change how we interact, but will it change why we interact socially because of its merging of different kinds of participation, some that do not necessarily have significant consequences and some that do (water-cooler gossip vs. political participation)?

Chapter 3: Coherency in Convergence

In the third chapter of Convergence Culture, Jenkins explains core concepts involved with the evolution of media production and convergence by using the example of The Matrix franchise. “The Matrix is entertainment for the age of media convergence, integrating multiple texts to create a narrative so large that it cannot be contained within a single medium” (97). This alternative way of creating a production or story across multiple levels of media significantly changes the audience’s approach to media production.

With a comparison to the cult following of the classical film, Casablanca, Jenkins describes why The Matrix is a groundbreaking creation. In this new cultural movement towards convergence with a more participatory audience, The Matrix is the first of its kind to successfully draw an emotional response and attachment from its subsequent audience, as Casablanca impacted its audience by changing the way people perceive and judge films. “If Casablanca exemplifies the classical cult movie, one might see The Matrix as emblematic of the cult movie in convergence culture” (100).

As seen in the example of The Matrix, this new convergence culture changes the dynamics of audience reception to media production. Now, not only do audiences become more participatory by their own will, but producers are demanding them to become more involved in many levels of their franchise in order to get more meaning and fulfillment from their production. Jenkins explains, “No film franchise has ever made such demands on its consumers…To truly appreciate what we are watching, we have to do our homework” (96). This new level of producer expectation puts more emphasis on the role of the audience member than ever before. “’What audiences make of Revolutions will depend on the amount of energy they put into it. The script is full of cul-de-sacs and secret passageways.” Viewers get even more out of the experience if they compare notes and share resources than if they try to go it alone” (97). This way of production fits the description of a concept called transmedia storytelling, which, “unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole” (97-98). The idea of using multiple channels to tell a story seems very exciting and engaging for both media producers and consumers, but there is question about the coherency of this kind of production.

At what point can a story stay coherent with so many variables contributing to it? In order to avoid inaccuracies and contradictions within the narrative, media producers have practiced the concept of co-creation, where, “the [different media] companies collaborate from the beginning to create content they know plays well in each of their sectors, allowing each medium to generate new experiences for the consumer and expand points of entry into the franchise” (107). This idea seems like a good plan to entertain audiences and build consumer loyalty, but it also seems like a good plan to get as much money as possible from a single production- a goal that would probably result in narrative slip-ups.

I would think that demanding the audience to search for answers on too many technological levels would make the narrative too complicated and diluted to form a legitimate story that makes sense. I guess that is why the Wachowski brothers are so vague when interviewed about hidden messages in their movies, because so many interpretations would inevitably collide or contradict each other, resulting in the demise of the story.