Where to Invade Next

In his film, Where to Invade Next, Michael Moore travels around Europe to "steal" great ideas from different countries and bring them back to the U.S. He finds schools with no homework, free college, paid maturity leave, paid weeks off, free healthcare, decriminalization of all drugs, and more. Surprisingly, other countries have these policies and they lead to great success. One of the laws that I found very interesting is the paid time off. 

In Italy, the average worker receives about 7-8 paid weeks off, not including other perks such as 5 months paid maternity leave, 15 days off after your wedding, and a two hour lunch break everyday. In contrast, the U.S. guarantees zero paid days off by law, and no paid maturity leave. However, the interesting part about this is that the U.S. is not necessarily more productive and the workers are less happy. Their explanation for all of these great benefits is that they value happy people. They put the people's happiness first, and then good work results from that happiness. They way they speak of their policies also makes them sound like they value life milestones much more. For example, they think giving a new mother any less time with their newborn would be absurd. They recognize and respect that the first few months are very important for the mother to be with her baby. They also explained that of course newlyweds need 15 days off after their wedding because they have to go on a honeymoon. They spoke of this as if it is common knowledge and they wouldn't have it any other way. 

Now, just because the U.S. doesn't require paid days off by law, doesn't mean that most people don't get some paid time off. However, I don't think it would be a bad idea to adopt a law that sets a minimum for those who don't have those kind of benefits.   

Toyama 5-7

I really enjoyed continuing to read Kentaro Toyama, as I find a lot of his points about technology and advancement really interesting. In chapter 5 of his book Geek Heresy, he speaks of camera technology at a school in India and how it apparently was the cause of the schools and teachers success. What happened was they decided to document teacher attendance by camera, to ensure that the teachers were showing up to teach their classes. However, they attributed the full success of the class to the camera technology holding them accountable for their attendance. However, what they did not factor in was the years of hard work behind the teachers lessons. This goes to show how sometimes we give technology a lot more credit than it deserves. We have to remember that humans are still valuable too.
I also really enjoyed his analogy with the ant and the grasshopper. In this analogy about work and happiness, the grasshopper is content being warm and happy all summer while the ant works very hard to prepare for winter. And when winter comes, the ant is content because it worked hard to prepare and the grasshopper is cold and miserable. The moral of the story is that long term happiness does not come quickly or easily, it is something you have to work at. I think that this idea can not only be applied to happiness, but also to helping countries in need as well. Merely sending laptops in attempts to help education is not going to create long-term change or well being. Fixing the problem overnight might sound like a tempting way to help, but in reality it is not helping in the long run.

Geek Heresy By: Toyama

I really enjoyed the first section of this reading, where Toyama discusses how technology has crept into and taken over our lives, but questions if it has helped larger social issues in the long run such as poverty. He speaks about how connected the world has become due to increase of Internet access and mobile phones. So much so that mobile phones could outnumber humans on earth by 2015. This increased access and connectivity has had direct impacts on knowledge, talent, education and social change. However, Toyama questions why the poverty level hasn't gone down in the US since bigger and better technologies have been emerging. Are we not putting our money or focus in the right place?

I also enjoy the section about Technoholics Anonymous which speaks of using technology as a way to solve your problems. I think with the amount of access to the Internet and the amount of information on the Internet, it can be difficult not to search for answers to your problems. I also think that we have been relating human progress with technological progress, but that is not always the case. To go back to Toyama previous observation about poverty - just because we were advancing technologically, does not mean poverty was getting any better. I think we too often get sucked into creating technology for the sake of creating it. Instead of creating technology to mimic reality with things such as virtual worlds, we need to focus more on ways in which technology can enhance reality.

Guest Speaker - Eliza

Our guest speaker on Thursday November 3rd, Eliza from the Burlington Free Press, made a lot of great points about advertising in the age of social media. One of the very first points she made was one of the most fascinating for me. She asked the class if we remember a time in our younger lives when we were not surrounded by the internet. She went on to say that if we do remember that time, then it makes us a valuable person. Her reasoning for this is that people who remember what life was like without the internet have a very different experiences with media because it isn't as integrated or taken for granted. These people see the internet as an addition to everyday life, not as everyday life.

Eliza also made a great point about how evolving technologies have had an effect on the value of communication. Before the printing press, communication was not taken for granted because it was very limited. But nowadays, multiple forms of communication are constantly at our fingertips. Essentially, communication went from being a luxury to being easy and free, and therefore less meaningful. This directly relates to advertising because it takes so much more to be able to grab someones attention. We have thousands of messages being thrown our way, so it makes it harder for one to stand out. This leads to the common thread that was present throughout Eliza's presentation, and that is: trust. With too much competition in the marketplace, it is hard to know what brands and ads to trust. Brands also have a history of being untruthful in their ads in order to draw more attention, so this also leads to trust issues.

Also seen through her presentation of the evolution of advertising is that this industry is defined by change. As we could see through the years and years of history she went through, Eliza pointed out that the communication industry is constantly changing. Whether it be the communication forms, the social media, or the target market, this industry will constantly be changing and advertisers are constantly trying to keep up with it.

Transmedia

"It's flat-out impossible to nail down a single definition that everyone can happily agree on." Basically, this chapter does the best it can to describe what transmedia is, but the reality is that there isn't one true definition that everyone can stick to. However, that is exactly what makes transmedia what it is. People seem to be obsessed with the fact that everything needs to be defined and therefore it is restricted to being only within those parameters. But transmedia can take on variety in scale, media, storytelling style and more. So transmedia holds this broad definition because the possibilities are essentially endless.
As I mentioned, these stories that are told across platforms take on many different forms in terms of scale, media and storytelling style. For example, the scale of a transmedia told in the West Coast (Hollywood) is much larger than one made in the East Coast. An example of a West Coast transmedia would be Star Wars, but the East Coast produces for a much smaller audience. They also take on different forms of media. The West Coast tends to have transmedia stories through movies, websites, books, and much more, but the East Coast tends to use web and social media. There are also a couple different ways to format your story. One way of doing it would be to take one story and spread it across multiple media, or you could start with an initial story and keep adding to it. Overall, transmedia is a very creative and thoughtful process that can really lead to powerful storytelling.  
 

Vimeo

When comparing Vimeo with YouTube, it is clear that they target and attract different audiences, and therefore have slightly different uses. While they are both video sharing websites, it is clear that the atmosphere on Vimeo is more sophisticated than that of YouTube. After making a Vimeo account, the screen read - "Discover amazing HD videos and share your own." This immediately sets up the mood of the site, while YouTube is seen more as a place to post any video no matter what aesthetic quality it has.

One way of looking at it is, YouTube is a place for everyone including filmmakers, but Vimeo is where filmmakers post their videos to be seen and commented on by other filmmakers rather than just everyone. The audience on Vimeo are others who post videos of similar quality and significance, so the comments and community that is created is constructive and mature. I'm not sure if the comments are regulated by Vimeo to create this atmosphere or if it is just created by it's users, but it is nice that Vimeo has created this space for filmmakers to have this community. 

Something else I found fascinating about Vimeo that is in-line with the filmmaker community is that once you upload a video, you can replace it with an updated version without losing stats from the video. There have been times when I've uploaded a video to YouTube and have had views on it, but realize that I need to make a slight change. I would love to just be able to replace the original video rather than start from scratch. Overall, after looking more into Vimeo I can see myself uploading some of my videos there in the future.  

Black Mirror: The Entire History of You

This episode of Black Mirror is set in a future where humans use a memory implant called a "grain" that records everything they do, see, and hear for later playback or a "re-do" as they call it. I immediately thought of how this is technology going to the extreme to capture moments so we can "remember" them, kind of like how we take pictures and/or videos of moments. I put remember in quotes because since they have it recorded and in their head forever, they don't really have to work to remember anything. However, that is just one problem I saw with this technology as this episode played out. Another downside to this was that as much as we may think it would be great to relive moments without needing to use a device to capture them, this episode shows us why it isn't always that great.
Liam expresses to his friends that he doesn't think this appraisal at work went so well, and they instantly want him to "re-do" it for them on the screen so they can analyze it. Since most people in this future world have a grain, they all can share moments they've experienced whether it be awesome, sad, intimate, or embarrassing. At first I thought that the only positive to this technology was that we would be able to live more in the moment because our eyes are just capturing everything for us for later, but then I wondered if they are truly living in the moment if they know they can just replay it later. I think our ability to store and replicate any experience whether it be by phone or by grain, takes away from being fully present in a moment as it is actually happening. Another problem I saw main character Liam experience was over analyzing everything that had been recorded. Since he could play back everything he's ever seen, it was so easy for him to dwell in the past. In today's world, I think we definitely see this in text messages. People over analyze what people say to them because it is permanently recorded on their device.
However, I think the hardest part to absorb about this episode from a "grain-less" perspective, is the normalcy that this technology has taken on in their society. Looking at Nancy Baym's four theoretical frameworks, they are definitely in the domestication stage. This makes me step back and think about technologies that are domesticated in our society today, like cell phones for example and even further - Facebook. And it makes me wonder how ridiculous it could look from a "phone-less" and "Facebook-less" perspective that we are constantly looking at these devices and connecting with friends through them. It worries me that the power that technology seems to have over us will eventually lead our society to situations we wouldn't want to find ourselves in - like living with the grain.

 

New Media

“Today we are in the middle of a new media revolution – the shift of all of our culture to computer-mediated forms or production, distribution and communication,” wrote Lev Manovich in his book titled “The Language of New Media.” He went on to discuss his two main principles of new media, which are numerical representation and modularity. With new media, we can describe everything digital mathematically and are subject to algorithmic manipulation. Also, with this digitization comes modularity – the ability for larger objects to exist, but also able to be broken down into smaller elements. Because of this, we are able to manipulate a picture or a song in ways that we couldn’t have done before. While Manovich breaks down his principles of new media very clearly, Nancy Baym outlines the effects of new media on humans and society.

One example from the second chapter of Baym’s “Personal Connections in the Digital Age” that I particularly liked was about how our lack of memory and attention span started with the creation of the alphabet. She quoted Socrates who was paraphrasing an Egyptian God saying that the discovery of the alphabet will lead people to forget what they have learned because they will rely on writing it down. Therefore, people are experiencing a false form of intelligence because their knowledge is not committed to memory. With this, I immediately thought of Google's information mine and how we don’t need to write down or remember anything because we always have the answer at our fingertips. I guess it’s fitting that Google’s parent company is Alphabet Inc.

Some may think that communication technologies allow humans a deeper level of connectivity because of their ease, reach, temporal structure, mobility, etc., however Baym examines the other side of this too. She points out that Socrates says writing provides “not truth, but only the semblance of truth.” I think this translates well to the virtual world that new media has created. If it happens online, did it really happen? There is a fine line between virtual and “IRL” (in real life), and as new media becomes more and more mainstream and becomes normal, that line gets harder to see. Baym speaks of how when a new medium is introduced we need to see what is does for us, but also how it works against us. I think the latter question is too often overlooked, and we end up in a world where our fascination of new media results in unexpected and unintended consequences. 

The Victorian Internet

Reading chapters eight and nine of The Victorian Internet about the telegraph was really interesting to see a few ways that the telegraph changed behavior in society and how we still see similar changes with modern technology today. For example, the telegraph marriage was a little extreme I’d say but in today’s society, long distance relationships can be aided by the use of texting, calling, and video chatting. However, I also find it interesting how they discussed how many people thought that it wasn’t real because it happened through the telegraph. I think this argument can also transfer to today because some people question that if you only ever talk to someone through texting, is it a real relationship? Another way the telegraph is representative of how some media are used today is because they explained how people normally expressed subtle or intimate messages over the telegraph. I relate this to how people today say things over text or social media that they might not normally say in person.

               Chapter nine discussed how the telegraph changed news and this was fascinating to me. Since we are so immersed in technology today, it is so hard to image a world without any of it. This chapter made me realize what it was actually like to not be able to communicate with people other than those around you. So the telegraph drastically changed news because now they could report about the other side of the world incredibly faster. The foreign correspondents used to have to write letters to deliver the news back home, but the telegraph was much faster. It became that the telegraph always won the news race instead of the newspapers because it traveled so much faster. This also makes me think of society today and how we always seem to hear major news on social media first, followed by validation from newspapers and broadcast news. 

Personal Connections in the Digital Age

In the first chapter of Personal Connections in the Digital Age Nancy Baym outlines what her book will be focusing on by breaking down seven key concepts. However, first she gets you thinking about how media and technology impact the connections we make with others. We’ve moved from only making face-to-face connections to being able to connect with almost anyone, anywhere, and at any time. This shift in the way we can communicate has impacted our world in what seems like endless ways. As Baym draws upon each of her seven talking points, it makes you think some of these shifts are potentially for the better, but with each also comes unintended negative consequences.

Her seven concepts include: interactivity, temporal structure, social cues, storage, replicability, reach, and mobility.

→She explains that our media and technologies have become interactive because they’ve created a way for not only them to talk to us, but for us to talk back. With this, we are able to connect with friends on Facebook, but we are also able to put out personal information which can be seen as “flirting with danger.”

→When she speaks of temporal structure, she explains the difference between synchronous to asynchronous communications. Email and voicemail would be examples of asynchronous because they are associated with time delays. Whereas synchronous communication is face-to-face, text messaging, and phone calls because there is no time delay. This brings up the point of what is expected of us just because we constantly have our mobile phone on us (or are expected to) we must respond immediately.

→When we are talking face-to-face, we can not only see facial expressions and mannerisms, but we are also existing in the space with the same physical surroundings. As we shift to digital, we lose a lot of these social cues. Due to this, we lose the ability to communicate effectively exactly what we mean in the way that we mean it, and we are also able to shape an identity that may only exist digitally.

→Digital communication also means that it can be stored and replicated. Baym mentions that human memory is poor when it comes to conversation, but I would argue that because we can store and replicate digitally, we’ve become even less careless about remembering. For example, we have become so reliant on technology that we can’t remember our friend’s phone numbers or birthdays.     

→With the ability to connect with almost anyone, comes the ability to connect with as many people at one time. Mass communication has given us reach. Communicating on a large scale can be beneficial when a young performer can become famous on YouTube, but it also means that private messages can be easily shared on the same large scale. (Ex. Black Mirror, Episode One)

→Instant communication has been made even more possible because it is now mobile. With this comes the “promise” that we will never lose contact no matter where we go. But it also means that we can be in a virtual world while physically existing in a real world.

For me, all of these concepts bring up the question: what does it mean to be real? If we are interacting instantly in a form that is not truly ourselves, in a way that can be stored and replicated, to the world to matter where we are – are we living online or are we living in the here and now? Or is virtual becoming the new real? 

Heidegger on Technology

In his work, “The Question Concerning Technology,” famous German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, defines technology in two different ways. He explains that the two statements that answer the question of ‘what is technology’ are: “Technology is a means to an end.” and “Technology is a human activity.” In other words, technology is a human activity that helps us achieve other tasks. Later on in his article, he discusses how since technology is a means to an end, it is considered the cause that results in an effect. I found this interesting when he broke down the origins of the word cause and revealed that it means “that which brings it about that something falls out as a result in such and such a way.” His definitions of technology made me think a lot about the ways in which we use technology and what we are able to accomplish by doing so. However, it also made me think about the negative effects that technology may unintentionally cause.

An example of technology that I immediately apply his arguments to is an iPhone. A technological device that a lot of people use every day to communicate digitally. In this case, the iPhone is the cause, with communication falling as the result. Heidegger’s statements about technology in 1977 make me wish he could see where technology is today. He writes, “Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it.” This could be an example of another end that technology is a means to. Sure the obvious end is communication but I think it could be argued that there are unintentional ends such as, miscommunication, lack of in-person socialization, etc. He also speaks a bit on how we must master technology in order for it to not “slip from human control.” However, the more we master technology and the more we create (take artificial intelligence for example), the more uncontrollable it becomes.  

Black Mirror: The National Anthem (Episode 1)

Media and technology are overwhelmingly present in the first half of the first episode of the British television series, Black Mirror. The episode opens with the Prime Minister, Michael Callow, waking up to a phone call to hear the news that a video was posted on YouTube of Princess Susannah being held hostage. She is forced to explain that in order for her to return home safely, the Prime Minister must have sexual intercourse with a pig on live national television. Michael immediately demands that the news must not leave the room, to which the response is it already has. Even though the video was only posted on YouTube for nine minutes, it was enough time for multiple people to download and share it. At that point it was too late and the news was spreading uncontrollably.

Watching the news unfold through different media was fascinating to watch and can be related to what Marshall McCluhan has to say about “The Medium is the Message.” First, the video was circulating social media such as Facebook and Twitter, but people received it very doubtfully. Even though they were seeing it before their eyes, the medium was too untrustworthy for them to fully believe it. Since the royal family put out a D-notice, the news outlets were hesitant to report on it, but once one of them did, they all followed. It’s not until the public saw the news on television that they fully believed it. This goes to show that the same exact message has very different impact depending on what medium delivers it. The medium that carries the message also makes people act differently. For example, when people saw the video on YouTube and social media, they were less sympathetic and more focused on the PM embarrassing himself. However, when it was on the news I feel like people were more sympathetic towards the situation.   

Because the news was blowing up, it also added another element of worry to the royal family. On top of trying to locate Princess Susannah and trying to work around the problem at hand, they were concerned that because of the news they already had a bad image. Even though the PM hadn’t done the act, his wife pointed out that it was happening in everyone’s head and it was already embarrassing enough. In this instance, media and technology changed the characters actions by intensifying the dilemma because they were also worried about what others thought about them. Another way technology was being used was in their attempts to work around the problem. Since the video was up on YouTube they were able to track the location of when and where it was posted from, and they also tried special effects to put Michael’s head on another man’s body. It was as if the only way to beat the problem that was brought upon then by media and technology was to use it to fight back.

I’m not sure if there is anything the characters could have done differently to avoid the spread of the video, but I think they could have handled it differently. It is obvious that the captor wanted the news to be known, because he wanted Michael to perform the act on national television. From the very beginning the captor’s goal was humiliation and the characters gave the captor exactly what they wanted. As hard as it would have been to do this, I think if the whole community worked together they could have responded to the news differently and in a way that didn’t give the captor what they wanted. I’m not sure what this would look like exactly (maybe everyone refusing to watch TV) but it probably wouldn’t have been possible with the nature of the media.

This episode of Black Mirror is from a very dystopian perspective where they live in a world where nothing seems to go their way. If this episode was from a utopian perspective, none of it would have ever happened. However, if they were in this situation, the message wouldn't have been spread and the public wouldn't have watched TV if they couldn't help it from happening. Since the captor made the first “hit” with a video on the internet, from that point on the PM and his team were just trying to play catch up. They weren’t in control. The captor was in control and seemed to have the whole nation against them in the form of pure embarrassment. If they had control of the situation, they could at least take away the element of humiliation if it wasn't possible to save the princess any other way. So, perhaps in that case maybe the perfect world would be a world without the overload of media and technology. 

The Medium is the Message

Chapter 1, The Medium is the Message, from Marshall McCluhan’s Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man thoughtfully explores media as an extension of ourselves. He goes into explaining how the content of one medium is simply another medium. For example, the content of writing is speech, and he traces it back to nonverbal process of thought. He also explores how the content of a light is not what it illuminates but rather the components of the light. So, he focuses on how the message is defined by the vehicle is uses to get to us rather than the content of the message.

I agree with McCluhan in the sense that how we communicate is important, and that it affects what we communicate. Choosing the right medium for the message is just as important as thinking about what it is you are communicating. McCluhan writes, “What we are considering here, however, are the psychic and social consequences of the designs or patterns as they amplify or accelerate existing processes.” As new mediums are introduced, each one has a new and different impact than the last. They may all have the same objective, to convey a message, but the form of communication changes the meaning of that process.

For example, the way in which we receive a book is very different from how we receive a film. Each unique with their own advantages and disadvantages. However, part of McCluhan’s point is that we wouldn’t even be reading or seeing these things had it not been for the medium. I find his referral to General David Sarnoff very interesting. Sarnoff writes, “We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” Some may think that the devices themselves are neither good nor bad when they stand alone, but it’s our actions when we put them to use that matters. However, McCluhan argues that rather than the messages that are conveyed, it is the impact of the medium that matters most and truly defines the message.