but as continuous with already exist-ing social structures and senses of identity.
This is evidenced by the paper we read on self-segregation and white flight in online communities, which I still certainly see at play today
but as continuous with already exist-ing social structures and senses of identity.
This is evidenced by the paper we read on self-segregation and white flight in online communities, which I still certainly see at play today
neophilia
def. interest in novelty purely for the sake of its newness
consensual hallucination
An interesting proposition
that culture, everyday life, individuals and households are materially and conceptually dis-tinct from technologies
While I agree that it's not right to say this so sweepingly, I do think there's some truth to saying that certain technologies are "adopted by" societies, I just don't know where I would draw the line. I might be wrong in this reasoning though. For me, it's plainly clear that certain technologies are an integral part of societies- the ability to use new tools, now-standard inventions such as the wheel and money, etc., though I know they were once new too. But when I look at the kind of technologies that are new to us now, I'm tempted to say that there was clearly a life and society before all that (since I lived in it), and it was in many ways different. Maybe a counterargument to this could be that the underlying aspects of society and human nature that bring about these technologies have always been consistent?
we can see not a Narniaor Matrix-like division of virtual and actual worlds, but rather a complicated interweaving ofmediated, lived, time and space.
This is a very simple point and yet one I still don't see made this clearly very often.
Thesheer proliferation of television screens, computer networks, theme parks and shopping cen-tres, and the saturation of everyday life by spectacular images so thoroughly mediated andprocessed that any connection with a ‘real world’ seems lost, adds up to a simulated world:a hyperreality where the artificial is experienced as real
But like.. it is real
Processes of fabrication, synthesis and artifice are realand all produce new real objects. A videogame world does not necessarily imitate an origi-nal space or existing creatures, but it exists.
An interesting point. And even if it did imitate in this way, I think it could be argued that it still exists for reasons other than it having a "real life" counterpart somewhere.
The morerecent interest in virtual spaces as spaces of identity performance or places where differ-ent roles can be played out appears continuous with older liminal zones
This is something I have considered a few times. Where does our identity lie when we spend time in this "in-between" world? And as it becomes more and more ubiquitous and we spend more time on it, how liminal can it still be considered? When will the virtual and the "real" world overlap, if they haven't already?
Or, more carefully, as a space which ‘comesinto being when you are on the phone: not exactly where you happen to be sitting, nor wherethe other person is, but somewhere in between’
Bruh
‘prosumer’ tech-nologies; that is, technologies that are aimed at neither the professional nor the (amateur)consumer market but both – technologies that enable the user to be both consumer and pro-ducer.
Hmm
‘Old’ media systems ofdistribution are not about to disappear, although they become less visible, because they arethe essential archaeological infrastructure of new media.
A very important point!! And fits a lot into our various debates about what even constitutes new media, and what makes something 'digital.'
A useful way to conceptualise the difference between centralised and dispersed media dis-tribution systems is to think about the differences between radio and television broadcasttransmissionsand computer media networks.
Interesting analogy to keep in mind
Those who left the city often left their profiles untended and they often fell into disrepair, covered in spam, a form of digital graffiti. This contributed to a sense of eeriness, but also hastened the departure of their neighbors. AsMySpacefailed to address these issues, spammers took overlike street gangs. What resulted can be understood asa digital ghe
Wow
Youth listed their musical tastes on their profiles and attached songs to their pag
This is an interesting factor that you don't see in many popular social media sites (facebook, twitter, instagram) now. And I can see how music could be more blatantly attributed to race and class as well.
While style preference is not inherently about race and class, the specific styles referenced have racial overtones and socio-‐economic implications. In essence, although teens are talking about style, they are functionally navigating race and
I don't know if the parallel is that 1-1, but it is good to keep in mind.
. Race and class shape practicesand the social agendas around race and class also drive them
This is an important note to make- a lot of people seem to think that their behaviors are purely based on their "tastes," which are totally random. This is just not true, and acting like "taste" can function outside of social and racial structures is pretty disingenuous.
Although wireless connections between computers and servers and to networks arebecoming increasingly common, many connections continue to rely upon cables and tele-phone lines, which have to be physically dug into the earth.
It's easy to forget this principle, including for myself, but very important not to.
This state of permanent flux is further maintained if thetext in question never has to exist as hard copy, if it is located only in computer memories andaccessible via the Internet or the web.
This is an argument I often hear for why digital information, such as wikipedia, is preferable to analog- wikipedia, for example, can be edited and update //immediately// whenever new information is discovered. It can also get into very specific topics that analog simply doesn't have the space to address.
A chair affords (‘is for’) support,and, therefore, affords sitting. A chair can also be carried. Glass is for seeing through, andfor breaking.
This is a big discussion in design as well, likely because of these communication confusions
So, while a person using the term ‘new media’ may have one thing in mind (the Internet),others may mean something else (digital TV, new ways of imaging the body, a virtual envi-ronment, a computer game, or a blog)
Frankly this is partially why I think the New Media term is a bit useless, at least without being more exactly defined
When we have studied the media weusually, and fairly safely, have had in mind ‘communication media’ and the specialised andseparate institutions and organisations in which people worked
Important working definition
hasbeenreferredto astunnel.....visionInengmeenng.
An interesting claim
which neglectsomeofthe specialneedsofEskimos andLapps.
I often consider this kind of sentiment when considering these questions- because this is true for many groups about many forms of technology. Technology will always be more accessible to some groups than others, does that mean all is inherently biased? I genuinely don't know
it has not necessarily influenced basicculturalvalues.
But some technology, such as television, can do that
ifwe feelthreatenedbynucleardestructionor more insidiously by the effects of chemicalpollution
I feel like arguments like these could benefit from listing technology we traditionally consider "good" and how they might be used for "bad." I know I personally would find that more convincing