xiv - it's a tradeoff - privacy for convenience - could be softened by our behavior and legislation to control it
1 - the law cannot keep up with the advancing pace of technology
Privacy is about choice - people choose to expose themselves online...however when it's someone else's choice to expose you, it's a violation. Being private does not indicate hiding bad behavior
3 - privacy protects freedom of choice - how and when to release personal info
-loss of privacy restricts freedoms to be ourselves and act freely
-allows us to be creative and make decisions outside the mainstream
"privacy is a sponsor and guardian to the creative and the subversive"
without privacy, the pace of invention slows b/c we would not be able to stay competitive - no initiative if someone else just steals your creativity (not everything can be transparent)
5 - "privacy allows us the dignity to present ourselves as we want the world to see us... without fear of judgment."
privacy allows us to behave as we like in seclusion, but still be treated with respect in society (it's about managing our reputations & brand)
when you control your information, you control privacy, which means you control your image
6 - Information collected can allow companies to control/influence your future decisions. (Which is a threat to our privacy - they want to control/influence your decision-making)
Big data "involved the prediction of trends" based on data that mined.
7 - "Using those facts to predict trends and develop better sales and marketing strategies"
11 Technology allows for data points to be recorded - where all parties collect data - the phone, software, apps, etc
data capturing companies then sell this information to other companies interested in particular data points.
35 - MIT study found that with just four data points, identities can be uncovered!
-cell phones passing towers & tracking - no real anonymity
STUDY called: "unique in the crowd: the privacy bounds of Human mobility" (2013)
14 - Personally Identifiable Information - (PII) - the more data collected from a device, the easier it is to identify you
15 - Behavior analysis data allows companies to more accurately predict behavior - but what is happening is that people are being classified into categories before they even act! (For instance, if you do this1 and this2, then you are probably going to do this3! even if you've never done #3)
Social Media chapter
80 - in addition to cookies, online firms are using web bugs which give users no control to opt-out. They are undetected and will collect information about you.
85 - the data Facebook collected about you and your friends is matched with third party databases.
"Marketing firms buy these bundles of social networking profiles to build out their product campaigns." Hence, targeted advertising results from this
Authors throughout this chapter instruct users how to opt-out or find alternative software
Chapter 13 - The Future
212 - expect computers to exist in places where they are not currently
Moore's law - Gordon Moore, the founder of Intel - wrote in 1965 that the "number of circuits on an affordable integrated computer chip would double every two years for at least a decade." Authors claim it has been accurate.
213 - Trend is to more deeply integrate mobile computing in our lives - which also means it will continue to intrude deeply into our private lives
219 - Business & government will benefit from this data
March 29, 2012 - Obama Admin. released the "Big Data Factsheet" which lists 85 examples of federal agency data mining. Implication for this: 214 - "the data collected by government is public record that and will be used by others"
221 - eyeball capture technology to watch the eyes of TV viewers (Verizon box)
Forms of bio-capture technology (health monitoring, voice monitoring, etc)
222 - "The Internet of Things" - a term to describe the trend of Internet technology invading our everyday items (thermostat, coffee makers, cars, etc). All to generate data about you and learn how you live.
223 - connectivity generates data about you and how you live - data that will be used by someone else
5-7 years (from 2014) expect TV and internet to merge
224 - authors call for better security measures for bio-capture technology and information collection. Instead of fingerprints and iris recognition, we should use vein patterns under the skin or retina patterns - because not only are they unique, they indicate someone is alive (so it would be harder to steal and use). Fingerprints can't be changed and yet, they can be stolen and used by others. Then what? How would you gain your identity back?
225 - Authors conclude with a bleak outlook: as technologies grow more sophisticated and invade more of our lives, "more aspects of our private lives stripped bare". "To avoid this we can hide from the technology, or we can look to governments to set rules that protect our privacy."
(my thought - the more invasive technologies become, the more sophisticated hackers will become and the authors started off admitting that the gov can't keep up... so their final question is a bit disturbing)
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Davenport & Beck (2001) The Attention Economy
2001 - The Attention Economy – Thomas Davenport & John
Beck
2 – pressing problem in society: “not enough attention to
meet the information demands of business and society.”
The Attention Economy is the new economy – “capital, labor,
information, and knowledge are in plentiful supply”
“What is in short supply is human attention”
3 – authors believe attention is now the currency of the
economy. (those who don’t have it want
it, you can sell it, trade it, and there is a limited supply (only 24 hours in a
day).
The economy evolves around attention as capital – caller ID
(preserves your control of your attention); email filtering (think of Gmail’s
tabs), text message alerts, DVRs (schedule your attention), advertisements are
valued based on attention (Nielsen ratings)
Companies that can capture your attention succeed, the rest
fail or are subsumed by successful companies.
Understanding and managing attention is they key tenets of
the attention economy.
4 - History – information was scant
Not that it took longer to consume info, but that there
wasn’t a lot of info to consume – until printing press, then television/radio,
now internet & mobile devices – travel & industrial revolution too
There is more information contained in the Sunday New York
Times than all the written material available to someone living in the 15th
century
Over 300,000 books are now published worldwide each year.
*Think about how or what we direct our attention to each
day. How do we make decisions – where to
go for lunch? What brand of beverage to buy? How much attention do we have to
give?
5 – in the attention economy, attention is generally
purchased with money
6 – Today we suffer from an attention deficit problem (or
what some people call a disorder)
Deficit is an economic term
How do or should we manage our attention? (side effects can
be stress, overwhelmed feeling, ect)
7 - Individuals aren’t the only ones to suffers from ADD, it
can also happen to businesses. (how to focus goals, what to emphasize, what not
to, etc).
7- Symptoms of organizational ADD:
-liklihood
of missing important info when making decisions
-diminished
time for reflection before making decisions
-difficulty
holding others’ attentions resulting in oversimplification or flashy designs to
get people engaged
-(mine)
lack of organizational goals or direction or trying to go after too many things
at once
In order to survive in this new economy, you have to be good
at keeping and maintaining others’ attention.
**Our attention records are stored by the NSA, corporations,
etc.** Our attention is under Surveillance.
Why do you think?
9 – Princicples of an Economy:
1. are
largely based on scarce goods in a given market. Attention is bought and sold everyday – and
fought for vigorously – think Internet Streaming vs Television. First Screen vs Second Screen.
2. Currency
must also be scarce. If it is too widely
available, it’s worthless. Multitasking is limited, the hours in the day are
limited, therefore there is no possibility of attention inflation. Attention has its definitive limits. (ex.
cell phones and driving) Economical
term: Pay attention.
3. Page
12 – law of increasing returns. The more people have of something, the easier
it is to get more of it. Those who get a lot of attention find it easier to get
more. Those who are rich in attention
economy tend to only get richer (although not always).
11- Economies have measurement systems – this is problematic
for attention. Precision is problematic,
but there are ways to measure attention. (Time is sometimes a proxy for
measuring attention).
What is the payback for paying
attention: learn something, change something for the better, fix what’s broken,
gratify a need
Attention economy has laws of supply and demand:
Herbert Simon, nobel prize winning economist: Information
“consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information
creates a poverty of attention.”
12 - What are companies willing to do for attention?
Contests, discounts, etc
13 – Internal attention markets - how much attention employees dedicate to
work – tension with traditional capital – companies want bigger profits =
smaller work staff = less attention to information = longer work days = more of
a demand to check into work 24 hours a day = email, VPNs, mobile phones,
conference calls, homework = less attention for family, relaxation, leisure,
eating, health, sleep, etc
Also, workers cannot afford to spend a lot of attention on
every message or piece of info that crosses their desk. Limiting time takes effect. And no attention time is given to reflection
on these pieces of info.
Ex – mercer has an “attention saving rule” – all mass emails
must be sent to an administrator first and if deemed acceptable and important
enough, can then be sent campus wide.
Who is getting the attention from the company’s
perspective? Is it your customers, your
employees, your suppliers, your competitors, or your investors? This affects
the goals of the company and job descriptions of the emplpyees.
Chapter 2 –
17 - During industrial revolution times and prior – physical
manpower drove the economy
During the information age
- the valuable commodity became knowledge – however now with the influx
of information it is attention that is managed as a resource and fought over as
a valuable commodity in the economy
Defining attention – early definitions looked at the effect
of sounds on ears for attention – which ear, how we direct it, surprise sounds
versus expected sounds and how someone could focus their attention
More recent experiments were on the eyes – where people
looked, the direction in which their head is turned, etc
However – attention
is much deeper – For the authors – page 20 – “Attention is focused mental
engagement on a particular item of information. Items come into our awareness,
we attend to a particular item, and then we decide whether to act.”
Thus, we may be aware of a lot of things around us, but we
often screen them out of our sensory inputs. (unconcscuous narrowing
phase) We then make a decision on how to
act on the attention getting info. (decision phase) (action can simply be
responding verbally or making a mental note or writing it down or a willful
decision not to act)
p. 21 - Both phases make up attention. There is a causal relationship between
awareness, attention, and action.
Here is the flow chart:
Awareness: Items comes into awareness
(Narrowing Phase) ---->
Attention: Between the narrowing phase and decision phase,
attention is paid to a particular item
(Decision Phase) ---->
Action: Decide on how to act/respond
IMPORTANT: page 22 – awareness is not the same as attention,
it’s the precursor to it
Awareness is vague while attention is targeted and specific
Six types of attention:
Captive vs. Voluntary:
Have to pay attention versus wanting to pay attention
Movie in a class – captive
Movie in a theater – voluntary
Commercial billboard on street – voluntary
Commercial in movie theater – captive
Aversive vs. Attractive:
Aversive means we pay attention to avoid negative
experiences (take notes or fail the class)
Attractive – we pay attention because it will bring about
positive results
Front of mind vs. back of mind:
FOM – conscious, focused, and explicit – you use this kind
of attention to drive a car, perform surgery, hopefully work on your
assignments
BOM – an awareness is present and attention is not focused
unless something unexpected happens – ex. FOM on texting, BOM on driving
New tasks typically are FOM, but as tasks become very
familiar routines, they become BOM
These types and pairings of attention are not mutually
exclusive and can be found in combinations.
Attention can both, captive and voluntary (you watch the ad in the
theater rather than look around).
The ultimate attention getter is combining all six at
once! Any examples?
Ex. sky diving:
voluntary – get on the plane and jump out
Captive – forced to experience the fall
Aversive – dropping like a rock, but knowing that if you
pull the ripcord you will be safe
Attractive – the parachute opens to glide you on a smooth,
yet exhilerating ride down
FOM – you are freefalling and are focused on getting back to
earth
BOM – awareness of everything around you, the possibilities
of death, memories, etc
Page 27-28
Attention Management is not time management. You first have to decide what is worthy of
attention before you can decide how much time it requires.
Chapter 5 – Attention & Technology
Page 75
Play the game or drop out and do something entirely
different (to get attention) (put on a chicken suit and walk down the street)
To play the game -you have to be on the edge of technology,
the forefront, to successfully compete for attention
76 - Planning & Research are crucial – know the field of
technology, but also know your audience and what drives their attention
Use technology for individual customization – targeted ads,
personalized emails, etc. People ignore
mass general messages
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Lee & Lee (1995) How and why people watch TV
used focus groups to collect data on the uses and gratifications of tv viewing
-aim is to provide a realistic foundation for imagining the future application of interactive television
10 - 1,782 viewers in a survey
10 - failures of previous interactive services - video text, picture phone, no assessments of consumers needs & preferences were done or ignored
Findings:
11 - four levels of viewing: (people aren't always intently watching)
Level 1: solely focused on television
Level 2: One of 2 activities going on: attention is divided
Level 3: TV as peripheral activity: awareness
Level 4: TV as background noise
Only 55 percent of viewers in the study were watching at a level 1 or 2.
12 - Suggest ratings should be "in the room with the set on" (Clancy 1994)
12 - TV viewing is social - interactive TV is individual - therefore, tension exists when more than one person wants to watch television together
12-13 - gratifications of viewing: company, parasocial interaction: "friends", mood elevation: relaxation, "social grease" - being able to communicate with others about TV
16 - predict that convergence with PC unlikely
-TV viewing requires a distance and is a social activity than compared to the singular-use computer
-ITV is more likely to involve an advanced version of the remote control
doubtful that ITV will swallow up the PC
ITV needs to take the uses & gratifications of viewers under consideration when designing an ITV system, as well as understand the viewing/use patterns associated with technology.
-aim is to provide a realistic foundation for imagining the future application of interactive television
10 - 1,782 viewers in a survey
10 - failures of previous interactive services - video text, picture phone, no assessments of consumers needs & preferences were done or ignored
Findings:
11 - four levels of viewing: (people aren't always intently watching)
Level 1: solely focused on television
Level 2: One of 2 activities going on: attention is divided
Level 3: TV as peripheral activity: awareness
Level 4: TV as background noise
Only 55 percent of viewers in the study were watching at a level 1 or 2.
12 - Suggest ratings should be "in the room with the set on" (Clancy 1994)
12 - TV viewing is social - interactive TV is individual - therefore, tension exists when more than one person wants to watch television together
12-13 - gratifications of viewing: company, parasocial interaction: "friends", mood elevation: relaxation, "social grease" - being able to communicate with others about TV
16 - predict that convergence with PC unlikely
-TV viewing requires a distance and is a social activity than compared to the singular-use computer
-ITV is more likely to involve an advanced version of the remote control
doubtful that ITV will swallow up the PC
ITV needs to take the uses & gratifications of viewers under consideration when designing an ITV system, as well as understand the viewing/use patterns associated with technology.
McGonigal (2008) Engagement Economy
2 - It's not just eyeballs/attention, it's getting engagement
Need to turn attention into engagement - "participation bandwidth"
5 - Participation networks all share the same operating model:
-create large scale communities capable of producing valuable data, ideas, or content
The creative output will only be applied & monetized if the community is large and active enough to produce something novel.
Value out output = quantity & quality of participation
Is there a limit to the quantity & quality of output? (author asks)
Engagement is limited in that a person can only expend so much in a certain time frame.
5 - "participation is designed as an active process requiring some mental effort"
As it becomes easier to launch crowdsorucing campaigns, people can only participate so much in each. (Thus, competition develops between campaigns)
7 - Operators must learn how to optimize "personal participation bandwidth" - the amount of participation we can contribute
Requirements:
"thought hours" - mental effort required to create something of value
"community scope" - the measure of diversity of membership a project requires
8 - "changing leisure activities (not in quote - such as watching less TV and using the internet more) combined with the rise of mass collab investment at the workplace means society's overall participation bandwidth is on the rise."
But with so many project, participation will be spread thin and projects will fail to reach the required "thought hours" and "community scope"
Calls for best practices to be established to make projects work
-maximize participation for members who participation bandwidth is diffused
-minimize crowd turnover
11 - Four Main Areas Driving Mass Collaboration:
1. Create Emotional Incentives
-History has shown financial incentives don't work
12 - Money is not the most important currency - Emotion is!
Economist Edward Castranova - people seek participation to produce emotional highs connected with accomplishing something, feeling capable
Nicole Lazzaro - calls this "fiero" (Italian for rush of pleasure)
Developers should design feel-good tasks that can be accomplished easily
BJ Fogg - "behavior change framework" - you can give people more ability through education & training or you can just make the target behavior simpler (BJFogg.com)
Shirky confirms that the pleasures of accomplishments and the feeling of competence are basic drivers of participation
Shirky: 3 basic motivational factors
-exercise unused mental capacity (emotion of feeling smart)
-vanity (capability to have your finger print on something big)
-desire to do a good thing
14 - the Pyramid of participation - first coined by 42Entertainment Game Company
-the peak supports the entire community
-emotionally, the bottom supports the top
15 - BJ Fogg's behavior change framework is a useful tool to help motivate the bottom of the pyramid
-trigger involvement - email, SMS, Facebook poke, etc
-motivate - (Yee calls it "the labor of fun")
Pyramid: Top (Achievement), Middle (Social), Bottom (Immersion)
This can help projects better target members of their community
16 - What is fun? It's a "very specific kind of self-imposed work"
17 - Leveling - rewarding productive users with new levels can ultimately invert the pyramid
18 - Projects should ensure "zero unemployment" - users should something to do at all times
19 - ***Major Point - "many crowd sourcing and mass collab projects fail to achieve viability, often because they are designed to capture attention rather than create engagement."
I would argue that attention precedes engagement. Engagement should not replace attention. They need to do both.
Need to turn attention into engagement - "participation bandwidth"
5 - Participation networks all share the same operating model:
-create large scale communities capable of producing valuable data, ideas, or content
The creative output will only be applied & monetized if the community is large and active enough to produce something novel.
Value out output = quantity & quality of participation
Is there a limit to the quantity & quality of output? (author asks)
Engagement is limited in that a person can only expend so much in a certain time frame.
5 - "participation is designed as an active process requiring some mental effort"
As it becomes easier to launch crowdsorucing campaigns, people can only participate so much in each. (Thus, competition develops between campaigns)
7 - Operators must learn how to optimize "personal participation bandwidth" - the amount of participation we can contribute
Requirements:
"thought hours" - mental effort required to create something of value
"community scope" - the measure of diversity of membership a project requires
8 - "changing leisure activities (not in quote - such as watching less TV and using the internet more) combined with the rise of mass collab investment at the workplace means society's overall participation bandwidth is on the rise."
But with so many project, participation will be spread thin and projects will fail to reach the required "thought hours" and "community scope"
Calls for best practices to be established to make projects work
-maximize participation for members who participation bandwidth is diffused
-minimize crowd turnover
11 - Four Main Areas Driving Mass Collaboration:
1. Create Emotional Incentives
-History has shown financial incentives don't work
12 - Money is not the most important currency - Emotion is!
Economist Edward Castranova - people seek participation to produce emotional highs connected with accomplishing something, feeling capable
Nicole Lazzaro - calls this "fiero" (Italian for rush of pleasure)
Developers should design feel-good tasks that can be accomplished easily
BJ Fogg - "behavior change framework" - you can give people more ability through education & training or you can just make the target behavior simpler (BJFogg.com)
Shirky confirms that the pleasures of accomplishments and the feeling of competence are basic drivers of participation
Shirky: 3 basic motivational factors
-exercise unused mental capacity (emotion of feeling smart)
-vanity (capability to have your finger print on something big)
-desire to do a good thing
14 - the Pyramid of participation - first coined by 42Entertainment Game Company
-the peak supports the entire community
-emotionally, the bottom supports the top
15 - BJ Fogg's behavior change framework is a useful tool to help motivate the bottom of the pyramid
-trigger involvement - email, SMS, Facebook poke, etc
-motivate - (Yee calls it "the labor of fun")
Pyramid: Top (Achievement), Middle (Social), Bottom (Immersion)
This can help projects better target members of their community
16 - What is fun? It's a "very specific kind of self-imposed work"
17 - Leveling - rewarding productive users with new levels can ultimately invert the pyramid
18 - Projects should ensure "zero unemployment" - users should something to do at all times
19 - ***Major Point - "many crowd sourcing and mass collab projects fail to achieve viability, often because they are designed to capture attention rather than create engagement."
I would argue that attention precedes engagement. Engagement should not replace attention. They need to do both.
Leavitt (2011) Watching with the world: TV Audiences and online social networks
2 - Ang (1991) stated that through ratings, the actual viewers were invisible conceptually & technologically to the TV industry
Today, information sharing is valuable to defining audiences.
Lunt & Livingstone (1996) & Livingstone (1998) question the collective and unified nature of the audience
Leavitt - the label of audience is a "malleable category that encompasses varying behaviors yet unifies diverse participants around media and information while moving beyond statistical extrapolations and outdated abstractions."
Traditional ratings study audiences as a group exhibiting one behavior - watching a TV show (and by households with individual demos)
Yet with prosumption, a lot more activities take place with audiences and it's valuable to understand
Seles (2010) calls for expression over impression (exposure) because expression shows why audiences engage in 1st place (this sounds a lot like Abzug's call for psychographics)
Overview - Leavitt's article assesses the evolving technical and social ecosystem that mediates audience participation online
3 - Early Internet was textual communities of fans discussing TV
-users would go to these communities based upon the tropic, not because of social relationships - they would result from the shared interest in the topic
4 - Costello & Moore (2007) (p. 127) - how to define audiences - participatory behaviors can range from minimal involvement - gathering information to fully engaged fans interacting with celebs and other fans.
Costello & Moore assert that social connections are constructed as a result of users participating in a community interested in media
Leavitt argues that today, audiences as communities need to be reconsidered because social media are primarily personal relationships constructed in "mediated online platforms" (aka the interest driven community is not what draws people to social media 1st)
Gee (2004) - "affinity spaces" - audiences are no longer defined to a specific space. There are a wide range of behaviors spanning multiple platforms, differing in levels of engagement.
Leavitt agrees with Gee and says that this online group audience dynamic is impossible to define by typical definitions of community
5- He argues that social media have not replaced interest-based communities, but participation is affected with how users engage with media.
-the shift from interest based networks to social based
Dwyer (2007) - different behaviors - participants share information in a way reflective of their personal and social identity.
6 - Leavitt - In other words, "participation on SNS (social networking services) around television content must be understood within the context of how an individual user's network will perceive that participation."
SNS have fostered "audience information systems" (Napoli, 2011, p. 88)
7 - Bridge social media & communities to enhance the media ecosystem and formilate better experiences
-sharing is vital to growing and fostering a network
(Leavitt is a pro-configurable culture)
10 - social recommendations will play a role in users participating and consuming media
12 - It's a "heightened social system" (meaning enhanced and more democratizing)
Today, information sharing is valuable to defining audiences.
Lunt & Livingstone (1996) & Livingstone (1998) question the collective and unified nature of the audience
Leavitt - the label of audience is a "malleable category that encompasses varying behaviors yet unifies diverse participants around media and information while moving beyond statistical extrapolations and outdated abstractions."
Traditional ratings study audiences as a group exhibiting one behavior - watching a TV show (and by households with individual demos)
Yet with prosumption, a lot more activities take place with audiences and it's valuable to understand
Seles (2010) calls for expression over impression (exposure) because expression shows why audiences engage in 1st place (this sounds a lot like Abzug's call for psychographics)
Overview - Leavitt's article assesses the evolving technical and social ecosystem that mediates audience participation online
3 - Early Internet was textual communities of fans discussing TV
-users would go to these communities based upon the tropic, not because of social relationships - they would result from the shared interest in the topic
4 - Costello & Moore (2007) (p. 127) - how to define audiences - participatory behaviors can range from minimal involvement - gathering information to fully engaged fans interacting with celebs and other fans.
Costello & Moore assert that social connections are constructed as a result of users participating in a community interested in media
Leavitt argues that today, audiences as communities need to be reconsidered because social media are primarily personal relationships constructed in "mediated online platforms" (aka the interest driven community is not what draws people to social media 1st)
Gee (2004) - "affinity spaces" - audiences are no longer defined to a specific space. There are a wide range of behaviors spanning multiple platforms, differing in levels of engagement.
Leavitt agrees with Gee and says that this online group audience dynamic is impossible to define by typical definitions of community
5- He argues that social media have not replaced interest-based communities, but participation is affected with how users engage with media.
-the shift from interest based networks to social based
Dwyer (2007) - different behaviors - participants share information in a way reflective of their personal and social identity.
6 - Leavitt - In other words, "participation on SNS (social networking services) around television content must be understood within the context of how an individual user's network will perceive that participation."
SNS have fostered "audience information systems" (Napoli, 2011, p. 88)
7 - Bridge social media & communities to enhance the media ecosystem and formilate better experiences
-sharing is vital to growing and fostering a network
(Leavitt is a pro-configurable culture)
10 - social recommendations will play a role in users participating and consuming media
12 - It's a "heightened social system" (meaning enhanced and more democratizing)
Sinnreich & Latoneo (2014) Tracking Configurable Culture from the Margins to the Mainstream
Main Idea:
799 - This article employs "configurable culture" to describe the range of emerging cultural practices that have blurred the boundaries between traditional production & consumption in the wake of digital technological developments. In other words, media can serve equally well from its original form to its mediated form & modifiers (such as effects, plug-ins, etc) serve as a form of second order expression.
800 - As a result, the linear process of culture production faces disruption
_______________________________________________________________________
798 - Production & Consumption - emerging digital technology afford users to do both
-it's an "inversion of the power hierarchy represented by traditional culture industries"
-conflict over regulation - copyright, authorship, ownership
799 - the appropriation & reconfiguration comes without consent of culture industry
-copyright law allows the culture industry to retain dominant economic gatekeeper position
digital technologies transforms mass consumers to mass producers & mass distributors
-this threatens to erode the foundation of industrial & commercial exchange that has long dominated
some scholars (Herman 2012, Lessig, & Vaidhyanathan) have argued this freddom of users should be fostered:
Lessig 2004 - "Remix Culture" rise should lead to creative commons licenses that stipulate how content can be used.
Aufderheide & Jaszi 2008 - Fair Use allows users to participate
Jenkins - participatory culture - which is democratizing
Jenkins - convergence culture - which is old and new media combining
Contrarians (traditionalists) - Keen - professional work is debased by amateurism
Industry Enforcers - Karaganis 2011 - employs the language of piracy & theft to discuss digital appropriation by users
799 - This article employs "configurable culture" to describe the range of emerging cultural practices that have blurred the boundaries between traditional production & consumption in the wake of digital technological developments.
In other words, media can serve equally well from its original form to its mediated form & modifiers (such as effects, plug-ins, etc) serve as a form of second order expression.
800 - As a result, the linear process of culture production faces disruption
Differences in Configurable Culture from Previous Terms:
1. These changes in culture production are not inherently democratizing
-many of these are not truly bottom up - but have been deployed strategically by the culture industry to extend hegemonic positions.
2. Although they may now have a voice (such as social media), users may also reproduce traditional biases and power dynamics
3. legal mechanisms (like copyright) create conflict with these new digital practices (cultural regulation and resistance)
800 - 2006 & 2010 surveys were administered to see the extent of freedom vs control in configurable culture by users behavior and opinions
804 - An important distinction was found in the study:
production - adjacent activities = requires people with tools and knowledge to consume and recreate/reappropriate media (therefore not entirely democratic)
consumption - adjacent practices = people in the digital space that consume configurable culture, but lack the ability or desire to participate more.
804 - This very distinction nullifies the overly optimistic assumption of Jenkins and participatory culture
810 - engagement levels with young people 18-25 continue to grow steeply
However from 2006 - 2010, the gap narrowed and older folks were becoming more aware and engaged in configurable culture
Also found that reflexive judgments about configurable culture across all age groups are biased negatively
820 - concluded that full participation in digital culture still requires a degree of social power conferred by wealth. - supports notions of digital divide
799 - This article employs "configurable culture" to describe the range of emerging cultural practices that have blurred the boundaries between traditional production & consumption in the wake of digital technological developments. In other words, media can serve equally well from its original form to its mediated form & modifiers (such as effects, plug-ins, etc) serve as a form of second order expression.
800 - As a result, the linear process of culture production faces disruption
_______________________________________________________________________
798 - Production & Consumption - emerging digital technology afford users to do both
-it's an "inversion of the power hierarchy represented by traditional culture industries"
-conflict over regulation - copyright, authorship, ownership
799 - the appropriation & reconfiguration comes without consent of culture industry
-copyright law allows the culture industry to retain dominant economic gatekeeper position
digital technologies transforms mass consumers to mass producers & mass distributors
-this threatens to erode the foundation of industrial & commercial exchange that has long dominated
some scholars (Herman 2012, Lessig, & Vaidhyanathan) have argued this freddom of users should be fostered:
Lessig 2004 - "Remix Culture" rise should lead to creative commons licenses that stipulate how content can be used.
Aufderheide & Jaszi 2008 - Fair Use allows users to participate
Jenkins - participatory culture - which is democratizing
Jenkins - convergence culture - which is old and new media combining
Contrarians (traditionalists) - Keen - professional work is debased by amateurism
Industry Enforcers - Karaganis 2011 - employs the language of piracy & theft to discuss digital appropriation by users
799 - This article employs "configurable culture" to describe the range of emerging cultural practices that have blurred the boundaries between traditional production & consumption in the wake of digital technological developments.
In other words, media can serve equally well from its original form to its mediated form & modifiers (such as effects, plug-ins, etc) serve as a form of second order expression.
800 - As a result, the linear process of culture production faces disruption
Differences in Configurable Culture from Previous Terms:
1. These changes in culture production are not inherently democratizing
-many of these are not truly bottom up - but have been deployed strategically by the culture industry to extend hegemonic positions.
2. Although they may now have a voice (such as social media), users may also reproduce traditional biases and power dynamics
3. legal mechanisms (like copyright) create conflict with these new digital practices (cultural regulation and resistance)
800 - 2006 & 2010 surveys were administered to see the extent of freedom vs control in configurable culture by users behavior and opinions
804 - An important distinction was found in the study:
production - adjacent activities = requires people with tools and knowledge to consume and recreate/reappropriate media (therefore not entirely democratic)
consumption - adjacent practices = people in the digital space that consume configurable culture, but lack the ability or desire to participate more.
804 - This very distinction nullifies the overly optimistic assumption of Jenkins and participatory culture
810 - engagement levels with young people 18-25 continue to grow steeply
However from 2006 - 2010, the gap narrowed and older folks were becoming more aware and engaged in configurable culture
Also found that reflexive judgments about configurable culture across all age groups are biased negatively
820 - concluded that full participation in digital culture still requires a degree of social power conferred by wealth. - supports notions of digital divide
Klein (1971) Why you watch What you watch
7 - Klein is a former VP in charge of audience-measurement at NBC
-feels most people complain about the programs and claim to never watch TV
-however instead of turning the set off, they continue to watch each night
-TV audiences are growing each year
Main Argument - Viewers watch TV regardless of content
Programs try to appeal to everyone, so in most cases it will not meet your needs or specific tastes
Klein compares TV to reading and says "reading requires a process called decoding."
-Here he does not give credit to the notion of the active audience
-He says that kids take in a lot more information than adults because they are less burdened with guilt when watching (doing other things would be better for adults and they know it)
8 - Visual quality of TV attracts people to shows that most of them would otherwise ignore in printed form
It's the medium that meets people's tastes
Least Objectionable Program Theory - flip around the channels and settle for the least objectionable program to watch
**This throws the entire ratings system into question
Inaccuracy in ratings is not an issue, it's the irrelevancy of ratings.
-There are many homes with multiple viewers, so why should a home be counted monolithically?
-Five people in the home watching Laugh-in versus One person watching Gunsmoke are counted the same - 1 home, 1 vote
-He calls it "non-sense"
9 - Additionally, popular shows may have consisted of people who "could not buy enough of the advertised product to pay for advertising time."
The high rated show made the other programs opposite low rated. Low rated shows are then dropped. However, the irrelevancy of these measures have become understood and has led to the rural purge, redefining a "TV hit."
TV Hit = "a program that reaches a mass of young adults, preferably those who live in the big cities."
10 - Very difficult to raise or lower HUTs, which indicate content has little to do with it.
Klein predicts this will eventually change and someone will figure out how to deliver more satisfying content (like niche networks?) - we are moving toward a "completely visual culture."
-feels most people complain about the programs and claim to never watch TV
-however instead of turning the set off, they continue to watch each night
-TV audiences are growing each year
Main Argument - Viewers watch TV regardless of content
Programs try to appeal to everyone, so in most cases it will not meet your needs or specific tastes
Klein compares TV to reading and says "reading requires a process called decoding."
-Here he does not give credit to the notion of the active audience
-He says that kids take in a lot more information than adults because they are less burdened with guilt when watching (doing other things would be better for adults and they know it)
8 - Visual quality of TV attracts people to shows that most of them would otherwise ignore in printed form
It's the medium that meets people's tastes
Least Objectionable Program Theory - flip around the channels and settle for the least objectionable program to watch
**This throws the entire ratings system into question
Inaccuracy in ratings is not an issue, it's the irrelevancy of ratings.
-There are many homes with multiple viewers, so why should a home be counted monolithically?
-Five people in the home watching Laugh-in versus One person watching Gunsmoke are counted the same - 1 home, 1 vote
-He calls it "non-sense"
9 - Additionally, popular shows may have consisted of people who "could not buy enough of the advertised product to pay for advertising time."
The high rated show made the other programs opposite low rated. Low rated shows are then dropped. However, the irrelevancy of these measures have become understood and has led to the rural purge, redefining a "TV hit."
TV Hit = "a program that reaches a mass of young adults, preferably those who live in the big cities."
10 - Very difficult to raise or lower HUTs, which indicate content has little to do with it.
Klein predicts this will eventually change and someone will figure out how to deliver more satisfying content (like niche networks?) - we are moving toward a "completely visual culture."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)