Click here to view our website.
Thank you đ
Ketevani & Margarita
click here for our website.
Thank you. đ
Ketevani & Margarita
Photo Credit: Topconzient
 The video game that I chose for this blog is the one my brother used to play. It is called  Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO). It is a multiplayer first-person shooter video game. The game puts two teams against each other: the terrorists and the counter-terrorists. Both sidesâ task is to eliminate the other while also completing separate objectives. For example, in the game terrorists either plant a bomb or take hostages while the counter terrorists either try to prevent the bomb from being planted or rescue the hostages.
For the sake of this blog I asked my brother couple of questions regarding the game. I found out that there are no women in it, not even big pictures or the wall or something like that. This makes me think that CS:GO is very male dominated and it ties to the Frank Schaapâs reading Disaggregation, Technology, and Masculinity where he talks about masculinity. Not only women are totally unrepresented, but the male characters are extremely muscular and caricatures of men. Similar to Sam Fisher from Splinter Cell, the terrorist and Counter-terrorists are men that seem âstrained, stereotypically maleâ (Schaap, 240)
As for the race I found that characters in the game are white. So non white races are also underrepresented. CS:GO reinforces the idea of a âmonocultureâ Lisa Nakamura mentions in her reading Cybertyping and the Work of Race in the Age of Digital Reproduction. âmonocultures are posed here as the opposite of diversity.â (Nakamura, 17)
Since there are no people of color represented in the game_ this creates a monoculture, meaning itâs not diversified.
Also, white male stereotype shown in CS:GO is an example of one of the cybertypes the author talks about.
Representation: Race, Ethnicity and Gender in Video Games and Video Gaming Culture
Questions:
1) What will be the future for gender and race representation in video games?
2) What would it take for women and non white people who work in technologies to start more representing themselves?
Photo Credit :tinasilva20Â
The documentary shows how the government control is different in the digital age. The big difference is that companies collect the information on their users. They do it for themselves, for profit. The government doesnât need to collect the information about people for themselves anymore. Now it just fights for its ability to access the information. And there is constant legal conflict between the companies and the government about that.
Our economy right now is following Keynesian ideas about allowing government control and intervention in the economy. This relation between the companies and the information about people brings government and companies (market, economies) closer together.
Because of this relation, âWe the peopleâ donât really have much power to control our information if we want to participate in digital communication, which is impossible not to do in this time. We need Internet, phone, computers, and networks to exist in this world. If you donât participate in digital networks it is very difficult to get a job and you lose communication to most of the world. In todayâs world government has power and also companiesâ power has increased greatly while the individual person has lost power. The reasons the government and companies want peopleâs information are different, but neither is good for people themselves. The government says that they want the information to prevent terrorism and other threats, whereas companies want it to make profit by selling it or using it to sell you other things. Itâs not good for the people because government can decide what they think is a threat and arrest you for something that isnât really a threat. For example, in the documentary there was a guy who got detained in the airport for whatever he tweeted about America. He mentioned âdestroying Americaâ where he meant partying hard but government decided he really was going to destroy the country. This is a perfect example of how government surveillance of our participation in social media affects peopleâs well-being and freedom. This is the one thing that shocked me because common sense should have been used to solve that problem. If a terrorist wants to destroy America, he/she wonât go on social media and post about it.Another thing that caught my attention was the scene about protests where they government arrested the some of the protesters before they started to protest because what they might have done. They decided that those people were a threat just because they were posting about it online. âThe activists didnât need to commit any crime, they just needed a text, to email and to call each other about potentially protesterâ (Sherry Turkle, Terms and Conditions May Apply, 57:20-57:27) And this is scary because it seems like it violates the rights to protest and free speech.
Another scary part in the documentary was when they talk about Terms and Conditions of the companiesâ services. Companies intentionally make them obfuscatory so that people wonât really read them. In the documentary, they mentioned that Instagram can sell your pictures but most people probably donât notice that in the Terms and Conditions.
To summarize my post, the documentary really scared me, and made me consider canceling all of my social media accounts. But at the same time, it is difficult for me because I feel like Iâll lose so many connections that I have built through the years. It is really scary to know that government and the companies have all sorts of personal information about me, and that theyâre profiting from my free labor. I feel used. All this made me think that I would more carefully post my opinions or pictures on social media.
This is an interesting article I find. –>Â Scorecard: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost?
Questions:
1.Why doesnât government use common sense before disrupting someoneâs life?
2. Would the companies be less profitable if they use simple, not too long Terms and Conditions for their services?Â
Source: lluĂs vinagre
 Digital surveillance that refers to the collection and management of data through the use of digital technologies and algorithms for numerous purposes including market research and state, plays a very important role in todayâs world. We donât really think that much about the fact that weâre being watched; that everything we do gives out information about us. And it is kind of scary to think about it deeply how much information we are sending with just using a phone, internet, credit card for shopping ether online or in store, GPS in the car, etc.
For example, letâs examine my engagement with digital media last week. I went on Facebook, read some posts, watched some videos, and liked some pictures all on that site. Also, I visited a couple of clothing online websites and beauty products websites just to check if anything was new and if they had sales. I bought something as well. Couple of days later I got email from one of those shopping websites promoting their new products and offering me some kind of discount if I buy it. I also went on YouTube and watched some videos and that changed my suggestion videos on my YouTube account. Netflix is similar to that too, I get suggestions of movies and TV-shows saying âthis is because you watched âŠâ
So, basically I sent a lot of information about myself: name, age, email, phone number, address, credit card information and etc. More importantly I gave the companies that run these websites my preferences and interests. Also, using phone, I also gave out information about my movement: where I went, for how long I stayed there and etc. I also made a call to my insurance company, Fidelis Care, which is sponsored by state of New York. They asked me my personal information even the social security number, which I always hesitate to give out, but there I didnât have a choice. I knew it was government sponsored entity but still deep down I felt that it was risky to giving out my SSN, I got the feeling that I did something to make myself less secure. Probably because weâre not safe, hackers can get that information easily, there might be scams and, etc.
Are we always aware that something somewhere in the hidden computer layer of our online activity is watching our digital movement?_ I guess we are, but I feel like we donât really give a lot of thought to how much information weâre giving out and what might be the consequences (or if there are any consequences). We assume that weâre not âpersons of interestâ to any of the entities doing the surveillance. However as Ethique says, âIf someone becomes of interest, a large volume of their personal information is already available for retrievalâ (Ethique, ch 14, pp 349) So, if we do something that one of the entities with our information sees as a threat then theyâll find us easily because they already have our information. We assume there will be no consequence if we fly under the radar.
Me personally, more I read and learn about it more I get scared. It is frightening just to imagine that they even track the movement of my mouse in the computer. I feel like that I donât really have my personal privacy. But on the other hand, even though that it scares me, it is always good to get more information about it and know what youâre dealing with and maybe control or monitor your online activities.
Of course, everything has two sides. Digital Surveillance might be bad and good at the same time. For example, on one hand Facebook enable us to interact with many people regardless of where they are but on the other hand it is able to sell information about us that helps marketing companies manipulate us.
Now being aware all of the fact that I live in a world in a constant visible but unverifiable surveillance I donât think that Iâll change my digital behavior that much simply because we live in a world where we need to have access to networks of connectivity. However this access, ârelies upon a thoroughly privatized and commercial infrastructure.. â. (Andrejevic, pp 280)This website provides some pros and cons of surveillance cameras in public places.
Questions:
1) What is the next change in digital surveillance?
2) What do government and market entities consider normal/acceptable behaviors, preferences and if they will ever going to change them?
Source: Mark SmiciklasÂ
For this blog I interviewed my friend.
– Now Iâm using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pixlr, and Snapchat. As for the past, Iâve used Facebook, Messenger, and WhatsApp.
 – I use real names and I have fake accounts as well. I donât post my real pictures either on my fake account, I have some kind of animalâs picture. Why Fake accounts? __ Well, sometimes I want to know what is going on that specific social media or check out someoneâs page but I donât want others to know that I am doing that either looking at someoneâs account or I donât want to be bothered by someone at that moment.
 – Facebook and Instagram are the social media where people expect you to be active by posting pictures, updates, sharing and actively engaging with other friends. However, I feel like Instagram has more personal touch to it. You can create an identity of your choice and make it popular.
For example, my hobby is photography and I have two Instagram accounts. Both are real but one is official account for my photography where youâll see all of my photos; I try on that page to be a photographer where I follow all the famous photographers, editors and so on and where Iâm trying to increase the number of my followers by posting only professional pictures taken by me to make them popular. And another account is another me for my friends, and so on, (but not my parents) where I post my pictures alone, with friends, selfies, maybe food or drink and where Iâm having fun. When I post on this account, Iâm able to express myself more carelessly and in a less professional way.
– Well some people feel more open on social medias and I am the one of them. Since I am a shy person in real life and I donât have that much experience in communicating freely with strangers, on social media I don’t have to face the other person I am talking to, it makes me more open and I feel more safe and secure.
I guess for me social media has positive and negative side effects. Sometimes it makes me feel so small and depressed when I see others having so much freedom, posting pictures having drinks on Friday night or pictures from a great vacation and so on. Whereas I unfortunately canât have that much freedom because of my very strict parents and cannot post anything like crazy with my friends because my dad might see it. Therefore, sometimes it makes me depressed to look at my disadvantageous situation. And I sometimes deactivate my account because of that, because it pisses me off but couple of weeks or months later I activate them again.
As for the positive effect of social media is that I can talk to strangers more freely; I feel more confident; I feel like I have an advantage when talking to someone on social media instead of face-to-face. Because on social media you have a choice to answer later, or not answer at all where in face-to-face conversation you cannot do that, you cannot pause the conversation.
Iâve met two people on social media that I havenât met in person yet because theyâre not in the U.S. So, social media definitely  helped me to make new friends.
In Turkleâs chapter 7, one of the subjects of the article says âa favorite MUD afforded an escape valve for anxiety and anger that felt too dangerous to exercise in real life. â (Turkle, pp 189) Â So for him a persona on an online platform allowed him an outlet for negative emotions.
My interviewee also has different personas with different functions. Her professional Instagram account is meant to promote her art and present her as serious professional person. It is very carefully curated. In contrast her personal account shows more complete picture of her personality because it isnât curated in the same way. She releases her anxiety by freely interacting through that persona and posting pictures for a community where she feels safe. So she doesnât use an online persona to release anger but she still uses them for psychological reasons.
Even though my friends online persona on her professional account isnât as deep or complex as the personas in an MUD, she still creates a separate character for herself. This character is an important part of her that she is proud of and wants to strengthen, and by creating a persona she is able to strengthen it within herself.
As Atique says “The disembodied anonymity of online communication offered the promise of an inclusive âvirtualâ society composed of computer-enabled interactions and characterized by newfound freedoms in identity-shifting, self-realization and creative fantasy. ” (Atique, ch 5, pp 119)
She is working towards greater self-realization by using the freedom of online communication.
This is an interesting article that I would like to share. -> The Many Faces of Me
Questions:
1. Which of your personas are you more honest in?
2. How do you use social media to release anxiety?
Source: start robot
Source: hondamarlboro
Source: Charles Goodell
Video Credit: Evan Carmichael  Â
2. Do you think there will be less and less face-to-face communication in 20 years? What about 40 years?