Author: kd151552

Do video Games represent the reality?!

counter-strike-global-offensive-confirmed-for-early-2012-release

Photo Credit: Topconzient

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 Schaap’s 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 “strained, stereotypically male” (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 “monoculture” Lisa Nakamura mentions in her reading Cybertyping and the Work of Race in the Age of Digital Reproduction. “monocultures are posed here as the opposite of diversity.” (Nakamura, 17)
Since there are no people of color represented in the game_ this creates a monoculture, meaning it’s 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?

A Reality Check.. ))

Terms and Conditions

Photo Credit :tinasilva20 

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 doesn’t 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, “We the people” don’t 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 don’t participate in digital networks it is very difficult to get a job and you lose communication to most of the world. In today’s world government has power and also companies’ power has increased greatly while the individual person has lost power. The reasons the government and companies want people’s 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. It’s not good for the people because government can decide what they think is a threat and arrest you for something that isn’t 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 “destroying America” 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 people’s 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 won’t 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. “The activists didn’t need to commit any crime, they just needed a text, to email and to call each other about potentially protester” (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 companies’ services. Companies intentionally make them obfuscatory so that people won’t really read them.  In the documentary, they mentioned that Instagram can sell your pictures but most people probably don’t 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 I’ll 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 they’re 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. –> Scorecard: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost?

Questions:

1.Why doesn’t government use common sense before disrupting someone’s life?
2. Would the companies be less profitable if they use simple, not too long Terms and Conditions for their services? 

And you think you can avoid it? )))

facebook is watching you

Source: lluĂ­s vinagre

For example, let’s 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 “this is because you watched 
”

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 didn’t 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 we’re 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 don’t really give a lot of thought to how much information we’re giving out and what might be the consequences (or if there are any consequences). We assume that we’re not “persons of interest” to any of the entities doing the surveillance. However as Ethique says, “If someone becomes of interest, a large volume of their personal information is already available for retrieval” (Ethique, ch 14, pp 349) So, if we do something that one of the entities with our information sees as a threat then they’ll 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 don’t 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 you’re 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 don’t think that I’ll 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, “relies upon a thoroughly privatized and commercial infrastructure.. ”. (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?

Different Personas on Social Media

Social Media Overlap

Source: Mark Smiciklas 

For this blog I interviewed my friend.

  1. What social media platforms and apps do you use now and what did you use in the past?

    – Now I’m using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pixlr, and Snapchat. As for the past, I’ve used Facebook, Messenger, and WhatsApp.

  1. Do you use your real name? Have you ever used aliases or created fake accounts? Why?

  – I use real names and I have fake accounts as well. I don’t post my real pictures either on my fake account, I have some kind of animal’s picture. Why Fake accounts? __ Well, sometimes I want to know what is going on that specific social media or check out someone’s page but I don’t want others to know that I am doing that either looking at someone’s account or I don’t want to be bothered by someone at that moment.

  1. What different personas do you construct in each of these platforms and how do they relate to aspects of your experiences in life.

 – 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 you’ll 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 I’m 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 I’m having fun. When I post on this account, I’m able to express myself more carelessly and in a less professional way.

  1. Do the digital personas you construct help you cope with problems you face or do they create new problems? In what ways?

– 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 don’t 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 can’t 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.
I’ve met two people on social media that I haven’t met in person yet because they’re not in the U.S. So, social media definitely  helped me to make new friends.

In Turkle’s chapter 7, one of the subjects of the article says “a favorite MUD afforded an escape valve for anxiety and anger that felt too dangerous to exercise in real life. “ (Turkle, pp 189)  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 isn’t 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 doesn’t 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 isn’t 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 ‘virtual’ 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?

Amazon Alexa is now a small home robot thanks to Omate.


Small Home Robot, Omates Yumi.

The article is both a presentation of the small home robot, Omate’s Yumi and an analysis of if you should get one. So, Yumi’s capabilities are basically same as the smartphone s’ except that it has a very high quality screen and speaks ; it also shares capabilities of Echo Dot to be always ambiently awake and responsive to your voice. It’s actually just like the first personal computer “that came straight out of the box with pre-loaded software”. (Athique, ch 1, pp11)

Amazon Alexaæ­èŒ‰ăźäœŽäŸĄæ Œă‚łăƒŸăƒ„ăƒ‹ă‚±ăƒŒă‚·ăƒ§ăƒłăƒ­ăƒœăƒƒăƒˆă€ŒOmate Yumiă€ç™»ć ŽïŒ

Source: start robot

Amazon Echo Dot

Source: hondamarlboro

Problem in the article I would say is answering a question: should we get the Yumi? And argument that authors makes here is that no, it is nothing special, just a smartphone inside a cute body that can run Alexa and that we should get a more serious robot like the ASUS Zenbo.

ASUS Zenbo Pricing and Availability Announced in Taiwan

Source: Charles Goodell

As for the evidence author talks about the Yumi’s hardware capabilities (what the robot body can do) that they are extremely limited. It will bump into things and can fall off a table. All it’s body is good for is turning slightly to face you. It’s just smartphone in a cute gigantic case.
To analyze the evidence the author uses comparisons to other products that have similar capabilities. For what’s missing in the article would be that the author could have included pictures and/or descriptions of the products he compared the Yumi to.
So how is this New Media? How does this product satisfies the New Media’s five key principles?
In my opinion it is definitely New Media and it definitely has all five principles. Here is why:
  1. Numerical Representation – Yumi processes a large amount of computer data stored in binary code for a potentially infinite number of programs and apps that include many types of media.
  2. Modularity – all the apps it can run can be downloaded, deleted, or replaced, without changing anything about the Yumi or the app – they are independent.
  3. Automation – it has all the normal automated processes of a smartphone, and the extra automation of both Alexa (which is software) and the capabilities of the Echo Dot to stay awake and hear your voice (which is hardware).
  4. Variability – each Yumi has a copy of the Alexa program that becomes a customized version that “knows” the voice of its owner.
  5. Transcoding – “While from one point of view, computerized media still displays structural organization that makes sense to its human users — images feature recognizable objects; text files consist of grammatical sentences; virtual spaces are defined along the familiar Cartesian coordinate system: and son on — from another point of view, its structure now follows the established conventions of the computer’s organization data. (Manovich, pp 45)
    Because Yumi has a face and voice it’s more extreme transcoding. We know that transcoding includes computer layer and cultural layer which depend on each other.
    – Computer Layer – Yumi has the ability to store, sort, and retrieve  data and run programs. Also the Alexa software.
    – Cultural Layer– Yumi uses face and body, Alexa’s voice, and the way she speaks English and understands it (instead of in binary code). Also it should have the screen and GUI (Graphical User Interface).
    Questions:
    1. Are you interested in home robots?
    2. Which one would you prefer Yumi or Zenbo?

My 1 hour spent online – by Ketevani Deisadze

       Yesterday night before I went to bed I decided to check the Facebook and saw that my old friend from Georgia was online. So, I decided to talk to her for a while since we don’t have that much time because of the college and a time difference. While talking to her and waiting for her response I scroll down to Facebook page itself and saw some pictures, videos, and news that my friends and the official pages that I liked posted.
       I liked couple of pictures of my friends and left couple of comments too. After finishing my conversation with my friend I also checked my Instagram page, liked couple of pictures/photos there too and then I went to one of my favorite site YouTube just to see what was new there. So suddenly I saw videos called “Top 10 Rules For Success”. And I got interested in it and watched couple of them. For example: Sylvester Stallone’s Top 10 Rules of Success, Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson’s, Jackie Chan’s, Bruce Lee’s  and so on. Basically, it is 10-12 mins video that summarizes  and gives bullet points of famous person’s rules for success.
The videos were very motivational; I love these types of videos that makes you rethink your life, your actions and motivates you. So it was nice to hear their stories, how they struggled and how they got to the place where are they now. After that I went to bed, feeling positive and motivated.

Video Credit: Evan Carmichael    

      In pre-digital era it would have been much difficult to do things that I did. It would have been impossible to communicate with others across the world and to use internet to go to any social media and see the pictures, videos and news there.
Back in those days there was no digital software, not to mention the internet. It would’ve been impossible to watch videos on YouTube and listen to celebrities’ stories and advice; it would’ve been impossible to watch the videos period. If I wanted to hear these persons’ motivational speeches, I would’ve had to go see them speak in person. Back then you could’ve seen the pictures in your friend’s home.
      My experience shows how computerization has a positive afford because it makes physical location no longer a barrier to connectivity. In my case when I talked to my friend in Georgia from the U.S. This is a positive effect of becoming post-geographical network society that the author, Adrian Athique talks about on page 16 of Digital Histories.
However, there is a negative effect of it also. Nick Couldry calls it a Digital Divide which is a high barrier to information access for people not already connected. For example people in rural areas or in undeveloped countries, or even simply just people who cannot afford much leisure time. Athique also mentions this problem, he says about network society “It is not a utopia, since it is marked by new forms division.” (pp17) By this he means the divisions between people with connectivity and people without it.
      I recognized that I also do what Couldry calls “Massification” “Whereby most online activity converges around rather fewer sites than we would first expect.” (pp 19) For example I spent an hour online and I only visited three sites. Another example of “massification” is the fact that people spend more than 50 minutes a day on Facebook including messenger according to business insider.
Here’s how much time do people spend on Facebook, Instagram and Messenger every day.    by Jillian D’Onfro

 

Questions:
1. How could we remove the barrier that keeps people from becoming connected?

2. Do you think there will be less and less face-to-face communication in 20 years? What about 40 years?