eND

I hope you have enjoyed eEverything!

eDocumentaries

“The relatively uncommercial aspects of documentary throughout history has forced the genre to the continuous search for its ideal platform”, Ana Vicente.

The 'red tape' required for funding and distribution of documentaries via the professional film industry can work to prevent would be film makers, particularly social activists, from creating content that is often critical of the status quo. For this reason I think online documentaries are particularly important in helping to ensure the potential for all voices to be heard, and more importantly, freedom of speech.

Enabling documentaries to be viewed online has opened up a world of possibilities for documentary makers. No longer do they have to have the support of a production company to distribute their creations. Ultimately this means that more voices van be heard and more variety of documentaries can be potentially viewed.

This is a very positive thing for society at large. The benefits of not having only commercialised documentaries available is a great thing. Often, when documentaries have been produced with backing of major production companies, the forces of needing to follow a particular 'doctrine' or 'ideology' has, I'm sure, influenced the content of said doco's. Advertisers and the fear of upsetting 'mainstream' opinions has probably deterred people from saying exactly what they think - and documentary makers may not have been 100% happy to do this but taken on the view that at least a version of what they want to say is getting outthere. This is not a problem anymore thanks to online sources!

The problem that does exist with online documentaries is that not everyone knows how to find them, and as people can be protective of their internet usage they may not want to risk using up too much download by viewing a documentary online that turns out to be something they have not enjoyed. Even though they would have to pay to see mainstream documentaries at cinema's etc. it's almost as though people are less adventurous when it comes to the internet.

In order to help with the fact people are not necessarily aware I am here to offer some sites that provide access to online documentaries (unfortunately I cannot give away free broadband so help with the 'cheapness' factor of some people, but as least directing people where to go is a start):

• http://www.bodocus.com/
• http://www.documentary24.com/
• http://www.abc.net.au/tv/documentaries/online/

I have utilised the ABC's online documentary archive and I must say it was very interesting. It gave me access to documentaries on topics I would never have thought to investigate for myself... and it didn't even eat too much in my download either! :P

ePhones

Will the mobile phone screen become the dominant screen of the 21st century? Do we really need another screen to view movies, take photos, design art and access the Internet?

Almost nine and half years years into the 21st century the mobile phone, as far as I have witnessed, has already proved to be the dominant screen, and as far as my imagination can project I cannot foresee another screen taking over. Sure, developments may occur to the mobile phone but I cannot see an entirely different screen entering and dominating the market.

With a mobile in your pocket you literally have access to every source of communication used in the modern day. Social networking sites can be accessed, emails can be received, games can be played, video conferencing can be initialised, text messages can be sent and received and phone conversations can held. In addition to this, maps and GPS functions can be used, music can be purchased and played,memos can be recorded, photos can be taken, and movies can be made and produced.

Phones are so dominant within our lives it could be said out freedom, our privacy, and our sense of self is being encroached upon. This phenomena/feeling can be compared to Foucault's thoughts on modern society based on Jeremy Bentham's

"Panopticon" design of prisons.

Jeremy Bentham designed a prison system based on a "sentiment of invisible omniscience" (see image to left). Bentham himself described the Paopticon as "an new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example". Prisoner's whom were confined within prisons of Bentham's design were under a constant state of 'perceived' surveillance. As the prisoners were never aware of when or if they were being watched, but knew they were in a position for constant surveillance, as consequently their behaviour was modified cater to this. The chances of them 'letting their guard down' was heavily reduced knowing they could not escape the gaze of the watchful eye, regardless of whether the watchful eye was actually there.

Michael Foucault used Beatham's design to establish the idea that "modern society exercises its controlling systems of power and knowledge. Increasing visibility leads to power located on an increasingly individualized level, shown by the possibility for institutions to track individuals throughout their lives. Foucault suggests that a "carceral continuum" runs through modern society, from the maximum security prison, through secure accommodation, probation, social workers, police, and teachers, to our everyday working and domestic lives. All are connected by the (witting or unwitting) supervision (surveillance, application of norms of acceptable behaviour) of some humans by others." In this case of the mobile phone it is not so much 'visibility' that is the relevant factor, however the constant state of alert that it places us in can have a similar effect.

Mobile phones are part of the integrated social network that keeps us (you and me) under surveillance - but instead of being visually surveyed by a guard we are being surveyed by our friends, our family, our work colleagues and our clients. We can always be contacted; kids are only a phone call away from their parents; our bosses can contact us at any hour of the day; clients can call a mobile outside work hours and family can check in at any time of the day. Whether you are home or not, no longer matters. You are assumed to always be available, and that assumption dictates your actions. Most people feel obliged to take a phone call and from this can we ever truly feel relaxed or alone/have total privacy? It seems to me that we live in a constant state of alert. These latter factors are what made me draw a correlation to the Foucault's Panopticon-based theory.

As was the case with my eSex post, Donna Haraway's cyborg theory is once again particularly poignant. It could be said that phones have become such a dominant feature in our day today lives that many would struggle to live without them. I for one know that I would definitely struggle to eliminate mine from my life. Haraway may argue that this need, this attachment one has with their mobile phone, places people into the realm of being a Cyborg; that the mobile phone has become part of them; that without them they would be unable to function as they would like.

"Hi, my name is Liz and I am a Cyborg."

I am 100% behind the Cyborg theory when it is applied to mobile phones. Shamefully it has got to the point where my friends make jokes if I do not have my phone at hand...and the fact that I feel lost if I do not have my phones at arms reach proves to me that my phone has become part of me!

ePolitics

WARNING: Politicians Beware - Parody and Satire Guaranteed

Youtube is an effective means of communication. Once used by amateur video makers for fun it is now an excellent marketing source and online host for members of the public to view a multitude of informational and entertaining videos. For this reason it does present a number of benefits (in theory) to politicians who chose to use the site as a way to promote what they have to say. But do the benefits of YouTube outweigh those offered by the more traditional forms of promotion engaged within the political sphere?

Youtube is very popular, but do its users seek informative videos regarding politics when searching the site? I don't think they do, and to be honest, I think YouTube as a political tool is somewhat redundant. If the videos are done cleverly and generate a public following based on entertainment value then maybe the politicians would have some success, but as it stands many politician chose to use the site as they would any media form. Their YouTube videos present nothing new, content wise, compared to what they would provide for television, and are not necessarily fitting to the types of videos uploaded to YouTube.

For example, take this video of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard:

This video is incredibly uninspiring! Why put this on YouTube? YouTube works in a viral way; if people like a video they tell their friends, their friends watch it, like it, and then tell their friends, and so on and so forth. This is the main reason videos become successful and popular and how YouTube works its magic. This would not happen with the above video; there is nothing special about it. People would only watch it if they were specifically looking for it or if they happened to stumble across it by accident. Personally, I do not see the point of putting such content on YouTube as it does not suit the medium. This video is something that needs to be put on mainstream TV, probably on a news broadcast or special televised announcement, not YouTube. Politicians are so out of touch!

Now, lets see the successful side of politicians on YouTube...and by successful I mean successful for the maker of the video, not the actual politician! Take this video for instance. Look familiar? There is one small difference...

...PARODY! Something which I am sure is a politicians worst nightmare. But if you put a video on YouTube you have to expect this, especially if your are in the political sphere, wouldn't you? Politicians who upload videos are setting themselves up for ridicule and making it so easy for people to poke fun at them. When a politician places a video on the site they make it even easier for people to make fools of them. The author of the edited video does not even have to go to the effort of creating a video from scratch, the footage has been handed to them on a platter and all they have to do is add some quick, witty editing and presto, another politicians integrity is unashamedly chipped away at.

I believe the danger of YouTube has in subjecting politicians to ridicule through parody definitely outweighs the benefits the site could potentially provide them. The culture of YouTube almost guarantees that a satirical take will be adopted towards their videos. Sure, there are benefits, and if the politician has a 'clue-up' PR team, then maybe they would be able to use YouTube with success, but this would be a rarity, and it's basically 'fair-game' when attacking politicians; even if they did use YouTube well there would always be someone out there willing to bring them down.

Conclusion: Youtube and politicians = disaster (but highly entertaining for us!)

eProducts

According to Bruns (2008):

"There is an absence of producers, distributors, or consumers, and the presence of a seemingly endless string of users acting incrementally as content producers by gradually extending and improving the information present in the information commons, the value chain begins and ends (but only temporarily, ready for further development) with content."

What Bruns (2008) is referring to in his above statement is PRODUSAGE. "Produsage is the collaborative anf continuous buildingn and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement." Participant's in such activities are known as PRODUSERS.

Produsers are not producers (in the traditional sense). Rather than creating content based on the conventional, linear model of production, produsers generate content from content.

Traditional model of production:-

PRODUSER>>>DISTRIBUTOR>>>CONSUMER

The produser:-

CONTENT>>>PRODUSER>>>CONTENT

Therefore Produsers are simultaneously producers AND users if you compare their actions to the conventional production model.

Now, Bruns (2008) claims that because of Produsage there is now an absence of producers, distributors and consumers and instead a string of users acting incrementally as content producers by gradually extending and improving the information present in the information commons, but I disagree. They may not exist in the traditional sense (see first model presented above) but this does not necessarily eliminate their existence. Produsers are all of the above; they produce, distribute and consume all at the same time! The content Prousers provide/create/modify improves on existing material (although this is obviously debatable in every instance) and add to the market. The act of Produsage does not eliminate the art of production, instead it alters how products are being generated.

The content made by Produsers is still 'new', as it is different to the original. Produser's build upon content that already exists and try to make it better. Their work can expand the audience of the existing product, or find a new audience all together.

The work that is produced by a Produser can be very clever and often very entertaining. For example, take this video, "Charlie Bit my Finger - Again!", one of Youtube's most watched clips:

Now, take a look at the "Remix":

This is PRODUSAGE at it's finest.

I think Produsage is great and YouTube is an excellent space to find it. Many, many Produsers have upload their content onto the site and have subsequently had their content viewed by millions of people around the world...go and take a look! Among other things you'll find many variations to the "Charlie Bit my finger" video, and following list provides some great search terms for videos that all have had Produsers put their own spin on things:

• Mother of all Funk Chords
• Hitler finds out
• Evil eye baby
• Christian Bale takes David to the Dentist (Mash-Up)

Be sure to check out the original and the 'remix' to discover Produsage at work. Happy viewing!

eSex

Sex in Cyberspace: the ugly side of the internet; the profitable side of the internet; the secret side of the internet.

What can we not receive from the internet? The difficulty in answering this question is what makes the internet both great and unsavory at the same time.

The internet provides us with an unlimited supply of resources, but not all those resources are "good". Unsurprisingly the internet has a darkside...and that dark side is not that difficult to find.

Pornographic material has infiltrated the internet from its very beginning and has morphed into an extremely profitable industry. Advertisements, images, videos, chat rooms and live streaming are all available with just a few clicks of a button or entering a few words into a search engine; quite simply pornography is freely available to all users of the World Wide Web. Whether they are viewing pornographic images, watching videos, or participating in real time communication with other individuals, whether they are female, male, heterosexual or homosexual, the content is out there and people view it. So, what are the consequences of this materials' availability??

Pornography addiction: worse than crack cocaine?

In the article Internet Porn: Worse than Crack? by Ryan Singel, clinicians and researchers claim that "internet porn is leading to addiction, misogyny, pedophilia, boob jobs and erectile dysfunction"; a plight that is being liken to addiction to crack cocaine.

The clinicians and researchers main argument outlined that the accessibility of online pornography is what makes it such a great addiction hazard. Addicts can pump the 'drug' into their system any time they want due to the images being retained in their memories; thus, in essence, the addict can never fully remove their 'drug' from their system. This creates a dilemma for addicts when trying to recover, for how can you recover from something that you can never gain independence from? For this reason the panel suggested the government fund health campaign to warn the public of the dangers pornography pose to their lives, in an attempt to deter individuals from placing themselves in a position to fall victim of the content. But the chances of this eventuating are slim with many psychologists and sexologist finding the concept of 'pornography addiction' highly problematic. Is this fair?

Addiction is serious and can be triggered by a multitude of stimuli. Campaigns exist to help combat drug addiction, alcoholism, compulsive gambling, over-eating and mental illnesses. So why should addiction to internet pornography be different? Sure, the concept may not have expert/academic support at the moment, but once upon a time depression was not 100% supported either. If people have acknowledged pornography to be an issue in their life how can it be ignored? If people need help I think it should be provided. Ignore the terminology, ignore the politics, ignore the fact that not much research has been conducted to date and just help those who request it.

It’s not just a man’s world, believe it or not.

Now, common opinion may have you believe the world of online sex to be that of a man’s world, but in one study comprising 9,000 participants women accounted for 21% of cybersex addicts. For women cybersex has a more significant relationship aspect when compared that of men’s habits. This fact can be further analysed using Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Theory .

Haraway would argue than within the online world of cybersex women have become Cyborgs. The women use the computer as an extension of themselves to reach out into cyberspace to fulfill romantic, personal ad relationship voids that are not being met in the real world. They are using technology to extended their person and develop 'relationships' based in an artificial environment (cyberspace) with computers being the tool of choice to place them into that world. This is a Cyborg at work; without the technology the habits, relationships and feelings would not exist. The computer thus becomes a part of the women, and the woman thus becomes a Cyborg.

Personally, I was surprised that the level of woman participants was as high as is reported. I too was of the belief that cybersex was a man’s world. You learn something new everyday…

eLife

"Shared experiences create a sense of reality". Hmm, do they?

Meadows (2008:51) argues that experiences create a grounding of belief. “People in virtual worlds build things, use them, sell them, trade them and discuss them. When another person confirms what I am seeing, places value on it, spends time working to pay for it, buys it, keeps it, uses it, talks about it, gets emotional about it, and then sells it – this tells me there is something real happening. The suspension of disbelief has become a grounding of belief."

While on the face of it I do agree with Meadows statement (i.e if people believe it how can we question what they feel; it all relative, is it not?) I still question how such can occur. How do people get to the point of having a reality outside what is real? In order to discuss this point the online game of Second Life will be used as a reference.

Second Life is a virtual world developed by Linden Lab that launched on the 23rd of June, 2003, and is accessible via the Internet. Residents of Second Life (know as Avatars) can explore,

meet other residents, socialise, form 'relationships', participate in individual and group activities, create and trade virtual property and services with one another, and travel throughout the world (as it exist in Second Life).

Personally I am somewhat sceptical to the reality of what occurs in Second Life, or to what extent a 'sense of reality' can even occur. Surely participants are aware of the unrealistic essence of the world they are interacting within? Despite suspending their disbelief, a grounding in belief must still be hard to come by due to the fact the the 'true reality' of the situation hits them once they have existed the game? Thus I question how a suspension of disbelief can in fact become a grounding in belief, as Meadows argues.

By analysing the definitions of 'real', 'reality' and 'virtual' we can establish that Second Life is not real, and nor is it plausible for it to create a grounding in belief:-

• 'Reality' is defined as a real thing or fact that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
• 'Real' is defined as an actual thing, with objective existence; genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation.

The above definitions contradict all that is Second Life. Second Life does not exist independently of ideas that concern it nor does it have an objective existence; it is an imitation (of the real world).

In comparison:

• 'Virtual' is defined as something which is existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name; Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination.

This term can more realistically be associated with Second Life. Second Life exists because of people imaginations; it exists in essence, it is not a factual.

From this understanding I now find it more difficult to support Meadows statement in all of its entirety. Second Life is not real and therefore I find it difficult to argue that it could create a sense of reality by definition of the word. Subsequently I propose that Baudrillard's theory on hyperreality and simulations is the most appropriate theory to apply when interpreting the 'reality' of the online world.

The following excerpt (which was taken form here) explains Buadrillard's ideas on simulations and there relationships to the real:

"Representation starts from the principle that the sign and the real are equivalent (even if this equivalence is Utopian, it is a fundamental ax~om). Conversely, simulation starts from the Utopia of this principle of equivalence, from the radical negation of the sign as value, from the sign as reversion and death sentence of every reference. Whereas representation tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum. These would be the successive phases of the image:

1. It is the reflection of a basic reality
2. It masks and perverts a basic reality
3. It masks the absence of a basic reality
4. It bears no relation to any reality whatever; it is its own pure simulacrum.

In the first case, the image is a good appearance: the representation is of the order of sacrament. In the second, it is an evil appearance: of the order of malefice. In the third, it plays at being an appearance: it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearance at all, but of simulation."

Simulations help create hyperreality. Hyperreality is not genuine reality but a blurred line between what is real and what is not. Individuals can thus think something to be real but in truth it is the 'blurriness' that causes them to have this belief, not the fact that what they are experiencing is in fact reality. So from this, and referring back to Meadow's statement, I guess 'sense of reality' could occur, but I do not see how a suspension of disbelief could possibly have a grounding in belief.... people have a greater sense of reality than that, don't they?!