I got two packages in the mail - a vinyl record and a compact disc. All on the day that Australian music lovers would point their fingers and laugh at my stubborn luddism. Hadn't I heard? Spotify had finally launched Down Under! I could now stream any song I wanted from a pool of over sixteen million tracks filled by virtually all the major labels and independents wanting to fill their own cups with a totally "new" musical model.
As many pundits would have you believe the Spotify "revolution" isn't one at all - it's not the Red Army storming the Winter Palace and declaring peace, bread and land for the people; it's like the bound and gagged family Romanov inexplicably sprouting laser turrets from their heads seeing the ghosts of Cossacks rising from their graves to mercilessly hound Trotsky and his troops back toward the Ukraine. Spotify is a musical counter-revolution aiming to quash the orgiastic "free" producer/consumer-led music rebellion once and for all.
It’s so deliciously evil it beats life back into Monty Burns’ desiccated heart and has him whistling Dixie and calling Mater. (Ahoy-hoy?) Here’s why.
The digital arms race
Ever since the dawn of recorded music, the industry at large has had its eye on one prize. That is, controlling the content, the media and the distribution of both.[1] When gramophone records first appeared it wasn’t uncommon to have the music on vinyl sold in shops that had totally vertical integration (ownership from top to bottom from producer of the content to the point of purchase by the consumer. Case and point: HMV or “His Master’s Voice.”) The Compact Disc was a shift toward higher-fidelity media and lower overall manufacturing costs per unit.
The CD was jointly developed by Sony and Philips in the late-70s, the format gaining acceptance among consumers in the late-80s when an economy of scale was established. Sony and Philips jointly paid for the research & development, marketing and manufacturing of both the Compact Discs and the machines that would play them. Then they could license the technology to other companies. It’s a no brainer – Sony and Philips were (and still are, to some extent!) multinational music labels with vast back catalogues and new talent ready to be pressed to polymer which proves almost pilfer-proof (until the late 1990s, as we all know.)
But what to do! The medium of playback and distribution went spectacularly rogue after a stylized cat roamed around harvesting the innards of beige boxes through squeaky telephone wires in the yawning sunrise of 2000 AD. The pirates, once thought guerillas with nothing better to do than trade tapes around and occasionally burn a CD for a few bucks a pop were now legion, moving torrents (oh I love this water analogy) of (almost!) intangible data across networks without proper authorization from their intellectual property holders. The content was there, like it had been since Tin Pan Alley and even centuries before. But the stranglehold on media and distribution methods had slipped the grasp of the industry virtually overnight. It felt like no amount of speech impeded Danes with expensive lawyers could ever halt their revolutionary advance.
Commodification ala mode and a cup of tea
So what now? Do the record companies under the aegis of RIAA and their cronies hunt down the pirates and strong-arm them back toward their sanctioned tripartite model of music consumption or do they spend more money than they’re prepared to on R&D to create a new medium and a new distribution method? The iTunes model seemed “revolutionary” at the time – you know, telling people to pay for something they could get illegally for free – lest the counter-revolutionary martinets bound in and lay down the(ir) law. “Our content was never yours to begin with and now we’re keeping it,” they bellowed. And lo, Spotify and its ilk emerged.
They own the content. That's a given. The clever rub lies thus: remove the medium and utilize a well known distribution network that has existed in its present broadband form for about fifteen years. They seek to change the concept or perception of content ownership back to an near pre-technological state much like in the age of travelling band shows of yore. Yes, you may hear the music but you can no longer hold it in your hands.
By removing the physical or even the illusion of physicality (files on a hard drive), the medium and the distribution is in a state of simultaneous allness and nothingness; it’s always “on” yet you can never “have” the music. It's "your" song when you choose it - like out of a jukebox - but once the last note decays, so is your claim over it (not that you really had one in the first place). You can “search” the (not your) collection but it’s never “yours” – they’re the gatekeepers and you pay for them to lower the drawbridge. Once inside their opaque vaults, they're able track your playing habits to sell you more of what you already want. Then you're their billboard as they publish every guilty play of Pat Benatar to your friends on Facebook. It’s like the IKEA of promotion – IKEA keep their prices low because they outsource the construction of the product to you. Now Spotify have got you to do their marketing for them, too.
If budding content producers are paid a pitiful commission, more so the better in the eyes of the industry. By melding (or abnegating) the medium, they’ve lowered the price of music and also its value. If Spotify spends the same amount of money paying for the rights to the new Gotye record (quelle horreur) and the entire back catalogue of Darkthrone, per se, then what is the differential of worth between the two? There is none. The only savvy trick the labels can pull is restricting the “supply” of Gotye (or someone just as horrible and popular) but that would distort the market and their profit margins (in this new medium-lite model). Make everything on offer the same (pre-paid) price per click, throw in some ads and the money rolls in regardless. Not much for those who wish to furnish Spotify with music, but big payoffs for those who control mammoth oceans - not paper cups full - of content.
But what really fucking burns my potatoes is that Spotify is the closest thing we have to the real pop music experience. Richard Meltzer in his inquiry/parody of the Aesthetics of Rock posited that rock and pop music is the act of making the mundane interesting and exciting. Shit, if you can make money off it, more so the better.
Spotify is accessible on a desktop computer which you more than likely stare into each day to earn those dollars to pay for, well, Spotify. For the fraction of a second your consciousness wanders toward the sublime tongue of rock and pop in all its tinned ferocity on your shitty laptop speakers, the music industry suits have not only breathed a sigh of relief, their tar-stained cackles can be heard from a blue million miles...
Like I said, it’s pure evil fucking genius.
---
1: Jones, S. Rock Formation: Music, Technology and Mass Communication, Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, 1992 p. 185.
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
16.11.11
The three hour layover on the way to digital journalism
Attending the A.N. Smith lecture in Journalism at Melbourne University last night, Fairfax Media Chief executive and General Manager Greg Hywood outlined the digital media strategy for Fairfax in a "post-classified ad" revenue present and of course, future. Apart from the oh-so humble reminders that the Age and Sydney Morning Herald embraced the internet long before their competitors, his subtle investor pitch demonstrating the media convergence that Fairfax employs to derive its revenue was finally indicative of a media ecological approach to journalism and content communication across a mass yet still fragmented (in terms of point of access) audience. Print in the morning, smartphones on the go and accessing the web during the day, etc.
Mr. Hywood made a salient point in terms of devising a business model to ensure not only survival, but growth in quality journalism and content creation. Leaving the privileged curatorship vs. citizen engagement debate aside; he struck at the core of the problem for lumbering giants resistant to changes in their once robust classified ad "rivers of gold." The journalism, he said, was a solution to the fundamental problem of people trying to "make sense of the world around them." The media can no longer sit idle and react to changes in the consumption of their products, they must now find "solutions" in the skein of Postman and the Media Ecologists.
For example, Neil Postman only months prior to his passing remarked in a lecture that an airline wished to spend a substantial sum to improve the speed of their aeroplanes. Researchers found that they could cut at least three hours from the Los Angeles to New York trip utilizing new engine technologies. But then engineers wondered; what did passengers do with their three hour surplus of time?
Go back to their hotels and watch television.
Thus money was saved by installing televisions into the backs of their seats - the solution was much more ingenious than attempting to appeal to the abstraction of "progress." Just like News Ltd. recognizing that the medium in the afternoon was in fact the train platform and bus and tailored its message accordingly in the form of free, portable and "light" newspapers that can be read while waiting to arrive at one's destination.
Just because journalism can be uploaded and broadcast to smartphones and tablets doesn't mean it always, in every case should; if the problem is not knowing when or where rock gigs are and the solution is a weekly street press to guide you, why force change when it isn't required? Perhaps pondering this question will write the next chapter of journalism; whether in print or online or something unheard of.
Mr. Hywood made a salient point in terms of devising a business model to ensure not only survival, but growth in quality journalism and content creation. Leaving the privileged curatorship vs. citizen engagement debate aside; he struck at the core of the problem for lumbering giants resistant to changes in their once robust classified ad "rivers of gold." The journalism, he said, was a solution to the fundamental problem of people trying to "make sense of the world around them." The media can no longer sit idle and react to changes in the consumption of their products, they must now find "solutions" in the skein of Postman and the Media Ecologists.
For example, Neil Postman only months prior to his passing remarked in a lecture that an airline wished to spend a substantial sum to improve the speed of their aeroplanes. Researchers found that they could cut at least three hours from the Los Angeles to New York trip utilizing new engine technologies. But then engineers wondered; what did passengers do with their three hour surplus of time?
Go back to their hotels and watch television.
Thus money was saved by installing televisions into the backs of their seats - the solution was much more ingenious than attempting to appeal to the abstraction of "progress." Just like News Ltd. recognizing that the medium in the afternoon was in fact the train platform and bus and tailored its message accordingly in the form of free, portable and "light" newspapers that can be read while waiting to arrive at one's destination.
Just because journalism can be uploaded and broadcast to smartphones and tablets doesn't mean it always, in every case should; if the problem is not knowing when or where rock gigs are and the solution is a weekly street press to guide you, why force change when it isn't required? Perhaps pondering this question will write the next chapter of journalism; whether in print or online or something unheard of.
16.7.11
Where's Our Google, Too?
I felt compelled to add my opinion to the billion-strong chorus of ill-baked and half-formed critiques and hagiographies of Google+ on the basis none of them seemed to catch on to some fundamental facets of media ecology. Media ecology put simply is the study of media as an environment and was pioneered by Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, Jacques Ellul and many others. In honor of ABC Radio National's week-long celebration of the life and work of Marshall McLuhan, I present my simple media ecological analysis of Google+ and why I don't feel it'll take off to Facebook proportions.
1. Because it's Google+, not Google 2: Electric Googleoo
The mantra of media ecology, especially that of the late great Neil Postman is that new media is not additive but transformative. You don't get a culture plus television, you get a completely new way of disseminating and interpreting information. 20 years ago, not everyone needed a computer. But in 2011 you go into someone's home, chances are you'll see a computer in residence with a connection to the internet. Computers hooked up to the internet are a material change to our culture that results in a behavioral change. Go to any restaurant and see the new table adornments: black rectangles that go "ping" when your date is talking about new boots or football or whatever.
Google+ only works on the premise that it will make a material or behavioral change to your life somehow. If you intend to own a Chromebook, then yes - Google+ makes total sense. Using Chromium OS, Google+ fits right in to the entire purpose of the operating system and the computer; making it a purely web-based machine and experience.
If you don't own one nor do you intend to own one, it has to offer something drastically new and something substantially more cooler than Facebook to kick the Facebook habit.
2. The people who give a shit about it give a shit already
I've noticed no one is pestering me for invites any more - partly because they don't like me and mostly because those who already want it, have it and those who don't give a shit...well, don't give a shit. Google+ has almost already hit a critical mass of people who give a shit about it and now that anyone can send an invite the give a shit factor has taken a nosedive. Those who do give a shit evangelize about it as the Facebook killer but inevitably hit the obvious roadblock:
"So what's it like?" asks the incredulous bystander. "It's like bringing all your friends together, but you can follow other people you think are cool and you put them into circles and it's AWESOME," replies the Google+ zealot.
"So it's like Facebook."
"Yes, but better."
But is it better? Faster? Harder? Stronger? In what way? Pick any one of the preceding and it's especially difficult to evaluate if that's even true or not. But there is one way, which I'll explain later.
3. Pitching something to everyone means you need to make a habit out of it
Facebook was revered by university students because it couched them in a sort of electronic elitism - don't go to uni? Well fuck you, you can't use Facebook. Before long it was available to high school students, technical colleges and eventually everyone. Then it opened itself up to the internet and segued into the background of the web experience, not as the go-to site of the minute. It became a habit.
G+ seems to work on the premise that it's ridiculously simple enough for the web-only Chromium set but also powerful and malleable enough for the media "gurus" and code monkeys. Where does it leave the people in the middle? Killing e-cows with their mafia goons on Facebook. It's difficult to change a habitual behavior and the reason has to be compelling for those to change. Facebook wasn't built on a new premise, but its advantage over MySpace? It successfully broke down an ingrained habit (for some) and facilitated other people to form new ones.
Your friend posts a photo of what they're eating, every day? It's the online equivalent of twirling one's hair or tapping one's foot, mostly unconsciously. (How can you spend 2 hours on that fucking thing without realizing, I mean, seriously.) Perhaps we all need an e-Gestalt therapist to ask us "Vat is the sik-niff-ee-kunss of zat what you are doing zere?"
Can Google+ achieve the same thing? I doubt it - at this stage. To get to Facebook or even Twitter status, it has to be come a lasting and integral part of our everyday experience. Right now it's like "Oh yeah, shit, I have Google+. I should post this blog post about Google+ on it, right now!"
Even those who signed up for Facebook and didn't make a habit out of it would probably log in and find their notifications area awash with red. If there's no sustained buzz, I suppose we can wave it away.
1. Because it's Google+, not Google 2: Electric Googleoo
The mantra of media ecology, especially that of the late great Neil Postman is that new media is not additive but transformative. You don't get a culture plus television, you get a completely new way of disseminating and interpreting information. 20 years ago, not everyone needed a computer. But in 2011 you go into someone's home, chances are you'll see a computer in residence with a connection to the internet. Computers hooked up to the internet are a material change to our culture that results in a behavioral change. Go to any restaurant and see the new table adornments: black rectangles that go "ping" when your date is talking about new boots or football or whatever.
Google+ only works on the premise that it will make a material or behavioral change to your life somehow. If you intend to own a Chromebook, then yes - Google+ makes total sense. Using Chromium OS, Google+ fits right in to the entire purpose of the operating system and the computer; making it a purely web-based machine and experience.
If you don't own one nor do you intend to own one, it has to offer something drastically new and something substantially more cooler than Facebook to kick the Facebook habit.
2. The people who give a shit about it give a shit already
I've noticed no one is pestering me for invites any more - partly because they don't like me and mostly because those who already want it, have it and those who don't give a shit...well, don't give a shit. Google+ has almost already hit a critical mass of people who give a shit about it and now that anyone can send an invite the give a shit factor has taken a nosedive. Those who do give a shit evangelize about it as the Facebook killer but inevitably hit the obvious roadblock:
"So what's it like?" asks the incredulous bystander. "It's like bringing all your friends together, but you can follow other people you think are cool and you put them into circles and it's AWESOME," replies the Google+ zealot.
"So it's like Facebook."
"Yes, but better."
But is it better? Faster? Harder? Stronger? In what way? Pick any one of the preceding and it's especially difficult to evaluate if that's even true or not. But there is one way, which I'll explain later.
3. Pitching something to everyone means you need to make a habit out of it
Facebook was revered by university students because it couched them in a sort of electronic elitism - don't go to uni? Well fuck you, you can't use Facebook. Before long it was available to high school students, technical colleges and eventually everyone. Then it opened itself up to the internet and segued into the background of the web experience, not as the go-to site of the minute. It became a habit.
G+ seems to work on the premise that it's ridiculously simple enough for the web-only Chromium set but also powerful and malleable enough for the media "gurus" and code monkeys. Where does it leave the people in the middle? Killing e-cows with their mafia goons on Facebook. It's difficult to change a habitual behavior and the reason has to be compelling for those to change. Facebook wasn't built on a new premise, but its advantage over MySpace? It successfully broke down an ingrained habit (for some) and facilitated other people to form new ones.
Your friend posts a photo of what they're eating, every day? It's the online equivalent of twirling one's hair or tapping one's foot, mostly unconsciously. (How can you spend 2 hours on that fucking thing without realizing, I mean, seriously.) Perhaps we all need an e-Gestalt therapist to ask us "Vat is the sik-niff-ee-kunss of zat what you are doing zere?"
Can Google+ achieve the same thing? I doubt it - at this stage. To get to Facebook or even Twitter status, it has to be come a lasting and integral part of our everyday experience. Right now it's like "Oh yeah, shit, I have Google+. I should post this blog post about Google+ on it, right now!"
Even those who signed up for Facebook and didn't make a habit out of it would probably log in and find their notifications area awash with red. If there's no sustained buzz, I suppose we can wave it away.
29.1.11
Your Own Private Wikileaks
In October 2010, Facebook made available a downloadable zipped archive of your "sensitive information" to any user that wishes to access it. You make a query to the server to prepare your folder and it's available for download within hours. When I finally opened it, I was shocked at what I found.
At 33MB long, it contained all my profile information - past and present - likes, dislikes, comments, posts, photos and videos. Everything I had ever typed into a white field with a blue button marked "Comment" underneath. Interestingly, one can mark the dates of occasions, when significant people entered (and departed) one's life and retrace the origin and evolution of shitty internet memes.
That's all great, but what happens when it gets into the wrong hands?
The package is so convenient, any user that can at least "use" Facebook is able to navigate through it. It's akin to IRC or MSN Messenger chatlogs in that everything written is timestamped and all the links are clickable right from within the (very very) long homepage. If some kind of savvy private investigator or kid with a keylogger nabs your password they can access your complete Facebook record. They'd also need access to your email; but to be honest what kind of stretch is that from getting one's Facebook password? As great the trip down memory lane is, the more chilling it gets as you realize who else might be looking at this information - those we have "authorized" to or not.
Of course, all of this is used to aggregate "targeted ads" with parts of it sold to private corporations. I can't exactly criticize them for their advertising function since I have used it myself. But then again, I've never been privy to the exact information it uses.
Like the tagline of the Social Network suggests, you don't make 500 million friends without making a few enemies and your company most certainly doesn't get a market valuation of $50 billion without selling something. Of course, information is as much of an asset as an abstract financial instrument (like a derivative security - it is essentially ephemeral and may become worthless over time as the market shifts); Facebook will need to figure out new ways of goading new information out of you to keep its targeted advertising relevant. Newspapers and other marketers had to "guess" where trends were heading and who their target demographic was - now the verisimilitude of information that marketers possess to attract potential buyers is phenomenally heightened by Facebook.
So what can people theoretically do with your entire "wall" page, photos and videos? Well, who knows? Assuming you posted whatever you posted for a decent enough reason, you ought to have nothing to fear. Take some comfort if you plan to run for public office; perhaps in the future a "semi-nude Facebook photo" will become the new "I smoked pot but didn't inhale."
At 33MB long, it contained all my profile information - past and present - likes, dislikes, comments, posts, photos and videos. Everything I had ever typed into a white field with a blue button marked "Comment" underneath. Interestingly, one can mark the dates of occasions, when significant people entered (and departed) one's life and retrace the origin and evolution of shitty internet memes.
That's all great, but what happens when it gets into the wrong hands?
The package is so convenient, any user that can at least "use" Facebook is able to navigate through it. It's akin to IRC or MSN Messenger chatlogs in that everything written is timestamped and all the links are clickable right from within the (very very) long homepage. If some kind of savvy private investigator or kid with a keylogger nabs your password they can access your complete Facebook record. They'd also need access to your email; but to be honest what kind of stretch is that from getting one's Facebook password? As great the trip down memory lane is, the more chilling it gets as you realize who else might be looking at this information - those we have "authorized" to or not.
Of course, all of this is used to aggregate "targeted ads" with parts of it sold to private corporations. I can't exactly criticize them for their advertising function since I have used it myself. But then again, I've never been privy to the exact information it uses.
Like the tagline of the Social Network suggests, you don't make 500 million friends without making a few enemies and your company most certainly doesn't get a market valuation of $50 billion without selling something. Of course, information is as much of an asset as an abstract financial instrument (like a derivative security - it is essentially ephemeral and may become worthless over time as the market shifts); Facebook will need to figure out new ways of goading new information out of you to keep its targeted advertising relevant. Newspapers and other marketers had to "guess" where trends were heading and who their target demographic was - now the verisimilitude of information that marketers possess to attract potential buyers is phenomenally heightened by Facebook.
So what can people theoretically do with your entire "wall" page, photos and videos? Well, who knows? Assuming you posted whatever you posted for a decent enough reason, you ought to have nothing to fear. Take some comfort if you plan to run for public office; perhaps in the future a "semi-nude Facebook photo" will become the new "I smoked pot but didn't inhale."
7.11.10
Returning to a Fold
Last week, I pledged to take a break from Facebook and Twitter. I've mentioned previously that Facebook was almost "unavoidable" due to my running of advertising on behalf of a company I work for. But overall, I feel that my social media "embargo" was a liberating experience.
I saw The Social Network with Steph last week and we discussed whether Facebook is popular because it has a purpose or rather, people discover uses for it ex post facto. We couldn't come up with an answer. Social media, like most media, is created by loathsome people with loose morals for egotistical reasons. Well, it holds true for Mark Zuckerberg, anyway.
So, what the hell have I been doing?
Reading More
I have been reading more. News articles, blogs, magazines, books; you name it, I'm reading it...more. All the while not having any desire for electronic pats on the back, distracting me from actually reading what is written.
Getting Fit
As part of my ongoing personal challenge, I've been going to the gym more. I would usually struggle to go once per week, but this week I have gone there three times and plan to go once more before the week is over. My girlfriend says she notices the difference; I sure as hell don't!
Talking
Relying on social media to get critical messages (as in, ones that initiate action) is like telling a dog to pick you up from the train station. Social media, as a process has different meanings to everyone. Some see it as frivolous, others see it as a marketing tool, more as "agenda" or "trend" setting. (If they did, they certainly require the audience to be as passive as possible.) Using the phone, communicating clearly and concisely without losing the "fidelity" of the message has been a byproduct of this embargo.
Of course, my favorite part of the entire experiment is that people ask me how I'm doing. They no longer have a repository of personal information to make those judgments themselves. They become interested; they listen. I can talk with them instead of at them. Friends are genuinely surprised to know what is happening in my life and how these events effect me.
Social media had for the most part, made me feel I had reduced my life to a rolling headline. But it doesn't and shouldn't; social media attempts merely to make Princess Adelaide's whooping cough front page news all day, every day.
So what now?
I suppose I will use Twitter and Facebook again; albeit not to the inanely rapid frequency that I once did. If I ever "lapse," I can always go back into my personal social media rehab and have a great time there. I have missed talking to some people on there since we also talk outside of Twitter but not to the extent we do "on."
I do feel that Twitter and Facebook are good tools for people to have. However, like every good tool - a spoon, for example - they aren't meant to be used all the time, for every possible application. They have limitations and so do we.
I saw The Social Network with Steph last week and we discussed whether Facebook is popular because it has a purpose or rather, people discover uses for it ex post facto. We couldn't come up with an answer. Social media, like most media, is created by loathsome people with loose morals for egotistical reasons. Well, it holds true for Mark Zuckerberg, anyway.
So, what the hell have I been doing?
Reading More
I have been reading more. News articles, blogs, magazines, books; you name it, I'm reading it...more. All the while not having any desire for electronic pats on the back, distracting me from actually reading what is written.
Getting Fit
As part of my ongoing personal challenge, I've been going to the gym more. I would usually struggle to go once per week, but this week I have gone there three times and plan to go once more before the week is over. My girlfriend says she notices the difference; I sure as hell don't!
Talking
Relying on social media to get critical messages (as in, ones that initiate action) is like telling a dog to pick you up from the train station. Social media, as a process has different meanings to everyone. Some see it as frivolous, others see it as a marketing tool, more as "agenda" or "trend" setting. (If they did, they certainly require the audience to be as passive as possible.) Using the phone, communicating clearly and concisely without losing the "fidelity" of the message has been a byproduct of this embargo.
Of course, my favorite part of the entire experiment is that people ask me how I'm doing. They no longer have a repository of personal information to make those judgments themselves. They become interested; they listen. I can talk with them instead of at them. Friends are genuinely surprised to know what is happening in my life and how these events effect me.
Social media had for the most part, made me feel I had reduced my life to a rolling headline. But it doesn't and shouldn't; social media attempts merely to make Princess Adelaide's whooping cough front page news all day, every day.
So what now?
I suppose I will use Twitter and Facebook again; albeit not to the inanely rapid frequency that I once did. If I ever "lapse," I can always go back into my personal social media rehab and have a great time there. I have missed talking to some people on there since we also talk outside of Twitter but not to the extent we do "on."
I do feel that Twitter and Facebook are good tools for people to have. However, like every good tool - a spoon, for example - they aren't meant to be used all the time, for every possible application. They have limitations and so do we.
2.11.10
Facebook Follies
Apropos my recent Twitter and Facebook "embargo," I've found it increasingly difficult to avoid Facebook entirely, especially now that I've been contracted as a media consultant to Diamond Dog Food and Bakery, a boutique dog food, drink and product store in Bayside Melbourne. (Please "like it" so I can access a custom URL!)
The experience thus far has given cause to put a personal "value" on the friends I keep on there. One Facebook contact I saw tried to passive-aggressively knock me down a peg - I had no care for his online "friendship" so I deleted him on the spot. I have no time to waste on people like that.
The Twitter hiatus has gone well, despite breaking it once to share a link to an interview I did with Jonas Renkse of Katatonia.
In a recent essay, I charged that Facebook and Twitter aren't just part of our media culture but a culture in and of themselves. I feel now that Facebook is borderline "unavoidable" if you wish to participate in commerce in any meaningful fashion.
Over time, I am becoming less and less enamored with both Twitter and Facebook and more likely to fight the urge to tweet or post. I caught myself thinking in 140 character "bites" to share with other people about 20-30 times over the last few days and had to actively stop myself from reaching into my pocket or firing up TweetDeck. If anything, it's shown me that I still have an attachment to being liked, being seen as witty or intelligent and as a good writer. If I can overcome those attachments, it lifts a massive burden from myself and eases a lot of self-imposed stress.
I don't feel disconnected from my friends - the connections on Facebook are devoid of intimacy and reality. The challenge is to find social relationships with substance in real life with real people, every day.
The experience thus far has given cause to put a personal "value" on the friends I keep on there. One Facebook contact I saw tried to passive-aggressively knock me down a peg - I had no care for his online "friendship" so I deleted him on the spot. I have no time to waste on people like that.
The Twitter hiatus has gone well, despite breaking it once to share a link to an interview I did with Jonas Renkse of Katatonia.
In a recent essay, I charged that Facebook and Twitter aren't just part of our media culture but a culture in and of themselves. I feel now that Facebook is borderline "unavoidable" if you wish to participate in commerce in any meaningful fashion.
Over time, I am becoming less and less enamored with both Twitter and Facebook and more likely to fight the urge to tweet or post. I caught myself thinking in 140 character "bites" to share with other people about 20-30 times over the last few days and had to actively stop myself from reaching into my pocket or firing up TweetDeck. If anything, it's shown me that I still have an attachment to being liked, being seen as witty or intelligent and as a good writer. If I can overcome those attachments, it lifts a massive burden from myself and eases a lot of self-imposed stress.
I don't feel disconnected from my friends - the connections on Facebook are devoid of intimacy and reality. The challenge is to find social relationships with substance in real life with real people, every day.
18.10.10
Embargo of Presence
Some excerpts with commentary from my recent essay (footnotes removed) on media ecology entitled "An iPhone in every hand."
Neil Postman in his magnum opus “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” wrote the easiest way to see through a culture is to “attend to its tools for conversation.” Currently, all of our conversation, save for face to face contact is mediated, at some level, by computers and the internet – the tools – and the conversation – the exchange of messages – is happening globally in which any user of a computer is theoretically part of this “globalized conversation.” But what is the nature of the language of this conversation – the “driver” of conversation that makes it possible?
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis presents the formation of language is “not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas, but rather itself is a shaper of ideas.” The computer and the internet and all its various convergent and multimedia forms not only have produced new platforms for communication, they have, in fact, shaped a new way of organizing and regulating ideas; the way humans interact with one another, conduct their business, their politics and their education of future generations.
One such device that achieved this was the mechanical clock. A computer is built on a time-telling function – time regulates the processing of information by creating a sense of “dramatic, fictional or symbolic time as well as a sense of past, present and future.” Computers, like clocks are self-operating machines; they manufacture no physical products. They are able to regulate starting and ending times for social/economic/political engagements; enforce deadlines and are used to track units of remuneration (workers paid by the hour, etc.) For example, all people across the known world began to
"[W]ork, sleep and eat by the clock” and began to “regulate their actions by this arbitrary measure of time, the clock was transformed from an expression of civic pride into a necessity of urban life…the computer too has changed from a luxury to a necessity for modern business and government.”
In 1993, Postman said that it would be possible for us to "privatize" our public space by outsourcing it to computers - we would be able to shop, converse and vote from the comfort of home. We have moved beyond that space - we can now do this anywhere with mobile smartphones. Like the mechanical clock, the computer regulates our movement and how we communicate.
It as if we cannot communicate if we do not have a phone or access to the internet like social media. It's commonplace to hear about events after the fact if you did "not check your Facebook."
Chunks of time can now be graphically represented; we can see the past and the future in our own present by the dynamic exchange of text, video, audio and images. The television was bound by time to show its programs sequentially - now the programs can be viewed in our own "time" at our will from wherever. As Watzlawick says, "one can not not communicate" - but what happens when one does not have an iPhone in his hand to begin with?
Neil Postman in his magnum opus “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” wrote the easiest way to see through a culture is to “attend to its tools for conversation.” Currently, all of our conversation, save for face to face contact is mediated, at some level, by computers and the internet – the tools – and the conversation – the exchange of messages – is happening globally in which any user of a computer is theoretically part of this “globalized conversation.” But what is the nature of the language of this conversation – the “driver” of conversation that makes it possible?
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis presents the formation of language is “not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas, but rather itself is a shaper of ideas.” The computer and the internet and all its various convergent and multimedia forms not only have produced new platforms for communication, they have, in fact, shaped a new way of organizing and regulating ideas; the way humans interact with one another, conduct their business, their politics and their education of future generations.
One such device that achieved this was the mechanical clock. A computer is built on a time-telling function – time regulates the processing of information by creating a sense of “dramatic, fictional or symbolic time as well as a sense of past, present and future.” Computers, like clocks are self-operating machines; they manufacture no physical products. They are able to regulate starting and ending times for social/economic/political engagements; enforce deadlines and are used to track units of remuneration (workers paid by the hour, etc.) For example, all people across the known world began to
"[W]ork, sleep and eat by the clock” and began to “regulate their actions by this arbitrary measure of time, the clock was transformed from an expression of civic pride into a necessity of urban life…the computer too has changed from a luxury to a necessity for modern business and government.”
In 1993, Postman said that it would be possible for us to "privatize" our public space by outsourcing it to computers - we would be able to shop, converse and vote from the comfort of home. We have moved beyond that space - we can now do this anywhere with mobile smartphones. Like the mechanical clock, the computer regulates our movement and how we communicate.
It as if we cannot communicate if we do not have a phone or access to the internet like social media. It's commonplace to hear about events after the fact if you did "not check your Facebook."
Chunks of time can now be graphically represented; we can see the past and the future in our own present by the dynamic exchange of text, video, audio and images. The television was bound by time to show its programs sequentially - now the programs can be viewed in our own "time" at our will from wherever. As Watzlawick says, "one can not not communicate" - but what happens when one does not have an iPhone in his hand to begin with?
22.9.10
This is not a sign
Talking to my broskie Mari today, we had a (very hearty) chuckle at one of our (former) twitter followers' predicaments following a "breakup" of her "boyfriend" who just so happened to live on the other side of the world. Communicating exclusively over the internet, it was revealed that this "boyfriend" neglected to give his e-paramour his phone number. He promptly deleted her from Twitter, Facebook, Skype and stopped responding to her emails.
You read correctly, sports fans. He didn't even give her his phone number.
I have been in a similar situation before but I was given her phone number, the phone numbers of her friends, pictures of them, letters and almost everything barring a physical presence. So why do people blatantly see warning signs when they arise and blithely decide to ignore them? Is it because they aren't told a warning sign is one when they see it? Do they need to be told in order for them to act upon it in the "correct" way?
Although seemingly unrelated, I had some free time today (on account of having no job - hopefully I'll inadvertently hack twitter somehow and gain some attention for myself) and read more of my perpetually renewed copy of Postman and Weingartner's Teaching as a Subversive Activity. There contained was an example of a class of students being forced to sit an exam again after several students were caught cheating, stealing the exam ahead of its sitting. Students' opinions ranged - it was unfair for make all to resit it due to the actions of a few; that it would give them an advantage over others; that sitting it again would impair their chances of passing since they forgot what they studied after the sitting anyway. The content of the test was irrelevant; it was only important the students passed.
Students in the modern era have been asking teachers "will this be on the test?" I always thought it curious and harmful during my high school years, considering I almost always read outside of the curriculum, especially for the humanities. I was ridiculed by others for doing so. It was, in the context of my "education", a complete waste of time which could be better spent "studying" for assessments.
So what did we all learn at high school? I loathe to think it was only information that required to be regurgitated at the right time in the right context. But the more I do remember about those days, the more my suspicions are confirmed. Since "being taught" is a top-down process, we are coerced into "learning" what teachers provide for us. If we didn't, a horrible consequence would befall us (such as ending up cutting onions in a potato factory, as my father would enjoy saying to frighten me.)
If they tell us a warning sign looks like A on a certain exam, then it cannot look like B. It is either A or not A. The Aristotelian law of non-contradiction holds fast in the classroom (in addition to the law of the excluded middle and the is of identity.) But as adherents of GS or other multi-valued empirical systems can attest to, it's far more ambiguous than that.
Affairs of the heart seldom are guided by the head. If the head is empty, then even more so. A warning sign usually doesn't say "Warning" on it. If our schools insist they do, then our schools are derelict in their mission to pass our knowledge on to the next generation so they may expand upon it.
You read correctly, sports fans. He didn't even give her his phone number.
I have been in a similar situation before but I was given her phone number, the phone numbers of her friends, pictures of them, letters and almost everything barring a physical presence. So why do people blatantly see warning signs when they arise and blithely decide to ignore them? Is it because they aren't told a warning sign is one when they see it? Do they need to be told in order for them to act upon it in the "correct" way?
Although seemingly unrelated, I had some free time today (on account of having no job - hopefully I'll inadvertently hack twitter somehow and gain some attention for myself) and read more of my perpetually renewed copy of Postman and Weingartner's Teaching as a Subversive Activity. There contained was an example of a class of students being forced to sit an exam again after several students were caught cheating, stealing the exam ahead of its sitting. Students' opinions ranged - it was unfair for make all to resit it due to the actions of a few; that it would give them an advantage over others; that sitting it again would impair their chances of passing since they forgot what they studied after the sitting anyway. The content of the test was irrelevant; it was only important the students passed.
Students in the modern era have been asking teachers "will this be on the test?" I always thought it curious and harmful during my high school years, considering I almost always read outside of the curriculum, especially for the humanities. I was ridiculed by others for doing so. It was, in the context of my "education", a complete waste of time which could be better spent "studying" for assessments.
So what did we all learn at high school? I loathe to think it was only information that required to be regurgitated at the right time in the right context. But the more I do remember about those days, the more my suspicions are confirmed. Since "being taught" is a top-down process, we are coerced into "learning" what teachers provide for us. If we didn't, a horrible consequence would befall us (such as ending up cutting onions in a potato factory, as my father would enjoy saying to frighten me.)
If they tell us a warning sign looks like A on a certain exam, then it cannot look like B. It is either A or not A. The Aristotelian law of non-contradiction holds fast in the classroom (in addition to the law of the excluded middle and the is of identity.) But as adherents of GS or other multi-valued empirical systems can attest to, it's far more ambiguous than that.
Affairs of the heart seldom are guided by the head. If the head is empty, then even more so. A warning sign usually doesn't say "Warning" on it. If our schools insist they do, then our schools are derelict in their mission to pass our knowledge on to the next generation so they may expand upon it.
4.7.10
Doomsday Simulated
It seems that films depicting material threats to our continued existence - tsunami, large meteor, nuclear explosion - are much more horrifying than those about terror caused by technology. The T-800 is a protector in Terminator 2, the Matrix can be subverted to serve human ends and the detrimental effects of the programs on Videodrome seem so outlandish they could never be believed as real by any rational person.
Reading Neil Postman's Technopoly: The Surrender of our Culture to Technology, he offers a bold critique of "progress" as contextualized by the advance of technology and our uncritical use of it. By abandoning the deification of omnipotent creators, we instead worship at the altar of Intel, Apple and Microsoft instead. It is almost we as humans require these machines to make sense of the world when in most cases, it obfuscates and confuses many people.
Most people cannot see the "point" of Facebook. If you ask a random sample of people as to the purpose and function of Facebook, I do not believe anyone could point to an extensional or definitive answer. So many of us subscribe to Facebook uncritically much like the masses of the Middle Ages that had an unwavering and unquestioning devotion to Christ and God. Those Facebook "heretics" that refuse to open an account or deactivate it are looked at with suspicion, much like Atheists and agnostics are by Christians and other religious believers. Though it is arguable that this new digital culture has supplanted an "analog" conception of culture, its worth noting how one interprets the information given over such a medium.
For example, Facebook relishes in two-valued thinking - like and dislike - for the images, video and text that can be posted on the site. A "like" encourages others to share and provide an opinion on what is being presented. If our content cannot be "liked", we modify it to such an extent where it will fit the constraints of the medium. Likewise, we refer to Facebook as a complete abstract entity and not as a process that has no real solid form. When Facebook goes "down" we yell at Facebook itself, not the servers, nor the connection leading from it to our computers or the human staff that are responsible for them. "Facebook" in and of itself is not hilarious, malevolent or inane yet we think it to be without any further investigation.
Technology, as Postman explained, "giveth and taketh away." What exactly social media has given us is difficult to discern. But I can guarantee is that almost no one has asked as they blindly entered their name and email address as they signed up what it has subtracted from our culture as a whole and whether it's a thing to be "liked" or "disliked" in and of itself.
Reading Neil Postman's Technopoly: The Surrender of our Culture to Technology, he offers a bold critique of "progress" as contextualized by the advance of technology and our uncritical use of it. By abandoning the deification of omnipotent creators, we instead worship at the altar of Intel, Apple and Microsoft instead. It is almost we as humans require these machines to make sense of the world when in most cases, it obfuscates and confuses many people.
Most people cannot see the "point" of Facebook. If you ask a random sample of people as to the purpose and function of Facebook, I do not believe anyone could point to an extensional or definitive answer. So many of us subscribe to Facebook uncritically much like the masses of the Middle Ages that had an unwavering and unquestioning devotion to Christ and God. Those Facebook "heretics" that refuse to open an account or deactivate it are looked at with suspicion, much like Atheists and agnostics are by Christians and other religious believers. Though it is arguable that this new digital culture has supplanted an "analog" conception of culture, its worth noting how one interprets the information given over such a medium.
For example, Facebook relishes in two-valued thinking - like and dislike - for the images, video and text that can be posted on the site. A "like" encourages others to share and provide an opinion on what is being presented. If our content cannot be "liked", we modify it to such an extent where it will fit the constraints of the medium. Likewise, we refer to Facebook as a complete abstract entity and not as a process that has no real solid form. When Facebook goes "down" we yell at Facebook itself, not the servers, nor the connection leading from it to our computers or the human staff that are responsible for them. "Facebook" in and of itself is not hilarious, malevolent or inane yet we think it to be without any further investigation.
Technology, as Postman explained, "giveth and taketh away." What exactly social media has given us is difficult to discern. But I can guarantee is that almost no one has asked as they blindly entered their name and email address as they signed up what it has subtracted from our culture as a whole and whether it's a thing to be "liked" or "disliked" in and of itself.
8.6.10
We are not all journalists now
Now that the internet is promulgated with myriad options to self-publish, its becoming plainly apparent that self-styled bloggers - or glorified and over-opinionated people with a platform to air their views - consider themselves journalists. Here's something you can publish on your next blog: If you never went to some form of school in publishing, journalism or media and communication, you are not a journalist.
"But Tom," they'll whine, "I get press releases in my email! I am invited to industry events! I'm an insider god damn it!" Perhaps - maybe I'm disinclined to believe you if you're able to string a sentence together and work in the industry that the events are aimed at. If you're an IT professional - yeah, you do get invited to trade shows. If you work in retail - sure, product launches are a place to be. That doesn't make you a journalist, it makes you a wanker with access.
Wankers with access are just dudes who are privileged enough to "know a guy" or are invited to exclusive events due to the nature of their primary occupation. If that is the case, then you are not a journalist. Just like how my knowledge of CPR does not make me a doctor or my ability to trade foreign currency does not make me a stock broker. If your definition of verifying sources is "waiting for the next press release" then you are not a journalist. Becoming a journalist is hard work. You are just a dude with a website. Please cease and desist on debasing my profession.
Yours sincerely,
Crushtor
"But Tom," they'll whine, "I get press releases in my email! I am invited to industry events! I'm an insider god damn it!" Perhaps - maybe I'm disinclined to believe you if you're able to string a sentence together and work in the industry that the events are aimed at. If you're an IT professional - yeah, you do get invited to trade shows. If you work in retail - sure, product launches are a place to be. That doesn't make you a journalist, it makes you a wanker with access.
Wankers with access are just dudes who are privileged enough to "know a guy" or are invited to exclusive events due to the nature of their primary occupation. If that is the case, then you are not a journalist. Just like how my knowledge of CPR does not make me a doctor or my ability to trade foreign currency does not make me a stock broker. If your definition of verifying sources is "waiting for the next press release" then you are not a journalist. Becoming a journalist is hard work. You are just a dude with a website. Please cease and desist on debasing my profession.
Yours sincerely,
Crushtor
5.4.10
Something Better To Do
On Facebook, there are many fan pages dedicated to a variety of subjects and, well, bullshit. Some of them range from pages celebrating rock stars, actors and authors - others are merely novelties and bullshit like "I called Princess Peach a slut when playing Mario Kart" or "Water tastes good when there's nothing else to drink." Some fan pages have even less of a reason to exist than the aforementioned - and these are the pages such as "Women should be in the kitchen" and the countless variations on that theme.
Leaving the humor aspect aside, I find them offensive. Not because I believe them to be degrading to women (which they obviously are on one level) because I find them degrading to men.
In the 2nd decade of the 21st century, the tools for making oneself independent are abundant, especially in the western world. In my profession, I can report from wherever, whenever and however I choose. To posit that me as a man should be mothered from cradle to grave is ludicrous and highly disturbing. Having a servile, submissive wife endlessly cooking food and cleaning up after us would not do us, as men, any favors. We would be reduced to boys, dependent on a woman for all our needs. While spite-filled frustrated men may believe having such a doting lackey that he can stick his penis into would be a dream come true, I would think it was an absolute nightmare.
By eliminating the requirement to fulfill our own needs, it would breed inaction and laziness. Ambition would falter and our masculine power and agency would be eroded. By subordinating our basic needs to a woman, we put ourselves in a position of dependence. While on a superficial level it would seem that the man dominates the woman in this situation, on a deeper, psychological and emotional level, the man gives up his masculinity in the process. If a man wants to truly exercise his masculine power he would see the complimentary nature of the sexes in a healthy way instead of a maladaptive child-parent dynamic. Its like men saying to women "I am helpless, please take care of me as if I were a baby."
I'll make my own fucking sandwich, thank you very much.
Leaving the humor aspect aside, I find them offensive. Not because I believe them to be degrading to women (which they obviously are on one level) because I find them degrading to men.
In the 2nd decade of the 21st century, the tools for making oneself independent are abundant, especially in the western world. In my profession, I can report from wherever, whenever and however I choose. To posit that me as a man should be mothered from cradle to grave is ludicrous and highly disturbing. Having a servile, submissive wife endlessly cooking food and cleaning up after us would not do us, as men, any favors. We would be reduced to boys, dependent on a woman for all our needs. While spite-filled frustrated men may believe having such a doting lackey that he can stick his penis into would be a dream come true, I would think it was an absolute nightmare.
By eliminating the requirement to fulfill our own needs, it would breed inaction and laziness. Ambition would falter and our masculine power and agency would be eroded. By subordinating our basic needs to a woman, we put ourselves in a position of dependence. While on a superficial level it would seem that the man dominates the woman in this situation, on a deeper, psychological and emotional level, the man gives up his masculinity in the process. If a man wants to truly exercise his masculine power he would see the complimentary nature of the sexes in a healthy way instead of a maladaptive child-parent dynamic. Its like men saying to women "I am helpless, please take care of me as if I were a baby."
I'll make my own fucking sandwich, thank you very much.
16.9.09
Warning: Politicians Talking
Outside my apartment in Atlanta, GA, there's a small post with a fluorescent marker on the top. It reads "WARNING: UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC CABLE." I kind of laughed first off, considering that the only people afraid of Fiber Optic cables are Telstra and the Australian Federal Government. In the US, people lament that their Internet services are sub-standard at best, saying that Asian powers such as South Korea and Japan have got the right idea and are beating them over the heads with it. That may be true; however, if the US are blind, then Australia is blind, deaf, lame and crippled from the waist down when it comes to providing internet - wireless or otherwise - to its citizens.
As huge billboards proclaim that "4G is now in Atlanta" most of Australia can't even manage to lay claim to having workable 3G services in urban areas at even half-affordable prices. Working with the Australian Domain Name Administrator earlier this year, more commonly known as auDA, we had to facepalm ourselves almost constantly every time the Government announced a new "initiative" regarding communications and the internet. We recoiled at how embarrassing our "firm" was presiding over the fair use of domain names when next to no-one could put anything on their websites that people could access with their supposed "broadband" connections (which may or may not be capped. Why do we cap data transfer? Like the IT Crowd chides Jen for wondering why "the internet" feels so light; it doesn't weigh anything.)
First there was the whole content filtering debacle and now the government costs Australian business money by flaking on even the most obvious infrastructure upgrades (Fiber to the home, for instance) that will futureproof domestic communications, even while wireless services catch up to fill the gaps, eventually becoming the standard for rural and regional centers. If the world thought Australia was a joke before, we might as run around with clown masks on now.
If Conroy and co. ever get a clue, please let me know so I can call up Julia and congratulate them myself.
---
And now it's raining and thundering so much here I can't remember a time when I saw such a thing.
As huge billboards proclaim that "4G is now in Atlanta" most of Australia can't even manage to lay claim to having workable 3G services in urban areas at even half-affordable prices. Working with the Australian Domain Name Administrator earlier this year, more commonly known as auDA, we had to facepalm ourselves almost constantly every time the Government announced a new "initiative" regarding communications and the internet. We recoiled at how embarrassing our "firm" was presiding over the fair use of domain names when next to no-one could put anything on their websites that people could access with their supposed "broadband" connections (which may or may not be capped. Why do we cap data transfer? Like the IT Crowd chides Jen for wondering why "the internet" feels so light; it doesn't weigh anything.)
First there was the whole content filtering debacle and now the government costs Australian business money by flaking on even the most obvious infrastructure upgrades (Fiber to the home, for instance) that will futureproof domestic communications, even while wireless services catch up to fill the gaps, eventually becoming the standard for rural and regional centers. If the world thought Australia was a joke before, we might as run around with clown masks on now.
If Conroy and co. ever get a clue, please let me know so I can call up Julia and congratulate them myself.
---
And now it's raining and thundering so much here I can't remember a time when I saw such a thing.
8.8.09
Crushtor's Guide to Annoying Everyone You Know on Facebook, Part II
Crushtor's Guide to Annoying Everyone You Know on Facebook, Part II
Only the chart is doin it rite
If there's a second-string guide to casually stirring that barely noticeable irritation that you feel every time you see something you irrationally yet unashamedly dislike on Facebook, this would be it. If hell seems like sharing this planet with other people, then Facebook is where those people project themselves digitally; together with all their bullshit tendencies that annoy the fuck out of you.
Worst Photos Taken with Ugliest Camera
First off, apologies to the closest thing we have to Oscar Wilde with a WACOM tablet, Mr. C. Onstad, for the appropration of his witticism. If you are unattractive, then you have no place on Facebook. At all. Please do not disgrace it with photos of your grotesque person, you are not suited for having images of yourself for consumption on any medium that can broadcast itself to more than three people simultaneously. The test: If you tend to smile and your face still appears rude to most others, then you just know.
Smug RSVP Regrets
OK. The event function on Facebook can often be a convenient tool for informing friends and potential business contacts about functions, parties and often times, "meta-events" such as "Hugs for Slurpees" day which makes next to little sense to me. However, the potential for RSVP abuse runs rife; selecting "Maybe" tends to result in a "No" (admittedly I have elected - once - to go to an event I said I'd "maybe" show up to out of possibly scores or even hundreds) and "No" requires a believable and perfunctory excuse - one that reflects a genuine-sounding lament for your non-attendance while aggrandizing oneself at the same time. "Oh sorry," most people write, "i'll be overseas." Yes, of course you are. Because your shitty travelogues and awkwardly framed pictures of downtown Stuttgart aren't reminder enough of your woefully generic adventures.
Complaining "to" Facebook about Facebook
I'm sure many users on Facebook are seldom satisfied with the layout of Facebook; any opportunity to complain about something using the service about the service will be seized more quickly than FREE MONEY NOW!!11 or WORK FROM HOME? EARN $92 AN HR!!! - likewise these users are terribly concerned for their privacy, fearing that monetization means the wholesale pillage of their credit card details and porn fetishes, all sinisterly uploaded to a waiting cabal of Indian data-entry operators that have little regard for calling you about a "free prize" just as you were about to tuck into a hearty bowl of Mac & Cheese.
Complaining about Facebook in the vain hope that Facebook (in this instance, the admins and mods of the service, not the seemingly self-aware robot that we thought operated the site) will somehow take heed and whimsically repair such gross crimes against intuitive web design for them is like the internet equivalent of saying "Get your stinking government hands off my Medicare!!!" Irony, unconsciously uttered on the internet? That's unpossible. Is Joseph Heller still alive? Someone should tell him about this, probably.
---
I should really blog about something I'm doing at some point. Oh well.
30.7.09
Into Hell?
I've figured that American TV reminds me of Twitter. Twitter, as most people that are half-way web savvy would be familiar with is the name of a micro-blogging service that some people regard as useless, has too much content to digest at any one time and seldom carries any meaningful discourse across its spontaneously fabricated space and time.*
Watching American TV, as a whole entity in its environment, doesn't seem to want to inform or even entertain as a passive medium or metaphor, but to act as a constant conversation with its audience, the language of which can be picked up by virtually anyone; even a "foreigner" such as myself.
Insofar that television shows are like Twitter, shows - be it sitcom, reality or drama - are like short bursts of narrative broken up by advertising, much like Twitter (if you've ever followed bots or marketing "gurus" you'll know what I mean.) Shows are sometimes also forced to extend the conversation to other mediums, such as the internet - the show itself does not wish to cease talking; however it cannot talk to its audience in a vacuum, obviously. Much like a ubiquitous bit.ly link, more conversation can be elicited elsewhere, at the discretion of the viewer. Having "special guests" from other TV programs, films, popular culture or music, etc. can be likened to the original "RT" or "follow friday"; promoting oneself vicariously through the pull-factor of a more popular trend or conversation.
Of course, the more popular a show/tweeter is, the likelihood of your participation in the conversation decreases dramatically. Having that said, the relationship doesn't have to be reciprocal; it just has to exist. When Television was first encountered by publics at large, it was handily branded as vacuous or useless. Now we cannot imagine living without it. Perhaps Facebook et. al. shall become just as indispensable as time wears on?
*Look for reference to "thanksgiving dinner"
Watching American TV, as a whole entity in its environment, doesn't seem to want to inform or even entertain as a passive medium or metaphor, but to act as a constant conversation with its audience, the language of which can be picked up by virtually anyone; even a "foreigner" such as myself.
Insofar that television shows are like Twitter, shows - be it sitcom, reality or drama - are like short bursts of narrative broken up by advertising, much like Twitter (if you've ever followed bots or marketing "gurus" you'll know what I mean.) Shows are sometimes also forced to extend the conversation to other mediums, such as the internet - the show itself does not wish to cease talking; however it cannot talk to its audience in a vacuum, obviously. Much like a ubiquitous bit.ly link, more conversation can be elicited elsewhere, at the discretion of the viewer. Having "special guests" from other TV programs, films, popular culture or music, etc. can be likened to the original "RT" or "follow friday"; promoting oneself vicariously through the pull-factor of a more popular trend or conversation.
Of course, the more popular a show/tweeter is, the likelihood of your participation in the conversation decreases dramatically. Having that said, the relationship doesn't have to be reciprocal; it just has to exist. When Television was first encountered by publics at large, it was handily branded as vacuous or useless. Now we cannot imagine living without it. Perhaps Facebook et. al. shall become just as indispensable as time wears on?
*Look for reference to "thanksgiving dinner"
4.7.09
Crushtor's Guide to Boring Everyone You Know on Facebook
Pasta: Good to eat, terrible to watch as a static image
Crushtor's Guide to Boring Everyone You Know on Facebook
Good afternoon Blogosphere, Twitterverse and Facebooktopia: here I am, back from the dead (no, not literally) ready to blog about more inane topics rather inanely. During my stint at a never to be disclosed technology based "firm", I probably buggerized around on Facebook more than ever before in such a compressed amount of time. Pouring through lists of websites and other boring shit made marginally less boring shit more appealing to indulge around in. (It probably explains my strange and larger than should be following on Twitter.) But some of this slightly less boring shit actually exceeded the boringness of the shit I was trying to avoid - (que pasa?); hence the rationale behind this post.
Taking Photos of Inanimate Objects at Parties and then Posting them
You've all seen them. Hell, some of you are culprits to this heinous crime. Most of them are just ridiculous over-reportage of the mundane; the pasta someone half-ate, a balloon that looks slightly askew to one in a bunch, an unattended DJ desk; all wastes of people's precious time. You do realize we all die at some point, right?
Groups Started in the Aid of Three Dudes Going Overseas for No Apparent Reason
Yeah, Facebook is sort of like Twitter, LiveJournal and Flickr; but not. In the event all three websites merged all of their servers in some kind of T-1000 absorbancy process which would look fucking awesome if filmed, they unfortunately shall never be.
What's shit about having a group for these things is that if you join it one of the nerdier dudes that comprise the traveling triumvirate who manages to stumble into the downstairs Internet Cafe of their backpacker hostel after another night on the piss can write up a lame and elongated post littered with bad spelling and the liberal use of the word "awesome" to describe the ridiculous and the sublime encountered on their trip.
The kicker is they then force you to read their mangled prose, because you'd feel like an arsehole if you didn't and it'd be awkward once they came back and asked "so dude, did you read my Facebook post?" and all you could produce is a half-hearted "Ahh, yeah man, it was cool" even though both of you know you're lying.
Re-Posting of Internet Memes Well Past their Use-By
Some people take some adjusting to the "new" way of the world and the immediacy of the Internet; because that's how it works; Zeno's Arrow is wherever you see it as at that particular moment; the past on the internet is meant to be forgotten. Like Strong Bad says - the internet is a place where absolutely nothing happens. Why ruin it by wasting time with time wasters everyone has already wasted their time watching? Benny Lava, I'm On A Boat, Beached Kiwi Whale; they are dead. To everyone. FOREVER. Let them rest in peace. Please. (Signed, the internet.)
There you have it fan(s), another worthless rant in an overcrowded world of worthless ranting. If only I could condense this to 140 characters...
Taking Photos of Inanimate Objects at Parties and then Posting them
You've all seen them. Hell, some of you are culprits to this heinous crime. Most of them are just ridiculous over-reportage of the mundane; the pasta someone half-ate, a balloon that looks slightly askew to one in a bunch, an unattended DJ desk; all wastes of people's precious time. You do realize we all die at some point, right?
Groups Started in the Aid of Three Dudes Going Overseas for No Apparent Reason
Yeah, Facebook is sort of like Twitter, LiveJournal and Flickr; but not. In the event all three websites merged all of their servers in some kind of T-1000 absorbancy process which would look fucking awesome if filmed, they unfortunately shall never be.
What's shit about having a group for these things is that if you join it one of the nerdier dudes that comprise the traveling triumvirate who manages to stumble into the downstairs Internet Cafe of their backpacker hostel after another night on the piss can write up a lame and elongated post littered with bad spelling and the liberal use of the word "awesome" to describe the ridiculous and the sublime encountered on their trip.
The kicker is they then force you to read their mangled prose, because you'd feel like an arsehole if you didn't and it'd be awkward once they came back and asked "so dude, did you read my Facebook post?" and all you could produce is a half-hearted "Ahh, yeah man, it was cool" even though both of you know you're lying.
Re-Posting of Internet Memes Well Past their Use-By
Some people take some adjusting to the "new" way of the world and the immediacy of the Internet; because that's how it works; Zeno's Arrow is wherever you see it as at that particular moment; the past on the internet is meant to be forgotten. Like Strong Bad says - the internet is a place where absolutely nothing happens. Why ruin it by wasting time with time wasters everyone has already wasted their time watching? Benny Lava, I'm On A Boat, Beached Kiwi Whale; they are dead. To everyone. FOREVER. Let them rest in peace. Please. (Signed, the internet.)
There you have it fan(s), another worthless rant in an overcrowded world of worthless ranting. If only I could condense this to 140 characters...
10.6.09
Crushtor: Brand Entrepreneur Marketing Guru Ichiban?
There's about fifty billion websites and twenty hundred trillion people on Twitter that "tweet" about internet marketing, branding, social media and whatever. Some of these arseholes expect you to pay for their "expertise" in generating leads, followers and whatever. Of course most of it appears to be spam, but a curious experiment I conducted today yielded some intriguing and disturbing results.
First off, it was supposed to be a parody of said "social media" marketers who think they can make exorbitant amounts of money from their tweeting. Who knows; bloggers with plenty of traffic probably can live off their advertising revenue once they hit a certain level of clout and credibility. Chris Onstad, creator of the hell of incisive and darkly funny Achewood comics says his advertising and merchandise sales allow him and his young family to live "comfortably" as a full-time comic writer.
Once I posted this:
I got 2 followers. After getting some tips from other friends:
Sure; advertising products or services with empty abstractions isn't anything we haven't seen before. But they have to refer back to something at the end of the day. If someone re-tweets "Top 5 tips for Brand Marketing on Social Media" and can't point to a real world, extensional definition they might as well be saying "Top 5 tips for blab blab on blab blab." (With apologies to Stuart Chase.)
First off, it was supposed to be a parody of said "social media" marketers who think they can make exorbitant amounts of money from their tweeting. Who knows; bloggers with plenty of traffic probably can live off their advertising revenue once they hit a certain level of clout and credibility. Chris Onstad, creator of the hell of incisive and darkly funny Achewood comics says his advertising and merchandise sales allow him and his young family to live "comfortably" as a full-time comic writer.
Once I posted this:
After about two weeks on twitter, I think my two most hated words are currently "network" and "marketing."
I got 2 followers. After getting some tips from other friends:
@lindsayevans Oh yeah! Good call! Welcome to Crushtor: social media affiliate marketing entrepreneur and SEO guru for hire and pizza partiesI was up to about 17. Within 4 hours I got 73 new followers. At the start of the day I was on about 220, now I'm up to 310 as I write this. Completely ludicrous. Most websites scamming you out of your cash promise you that amount of rapid "growth" - I just threw up some buzzwords and got the same effect. Its hard to tell if its marketers looking for genuine signal amongst torrents of noise or if they're trying to validate their own scam; "Hey boys, looks like someone's bought into the program, better make it look nice!" so I can invariably sign up more chumps. Because seriously; these people are just repeating one another without even pointing to anything that actually exists.
What High Priestess @goatlady says about #hailsatan: "Before #hailsatan my brand marketing ROI was 2%. Now it's like 66.6%!"
Sure; advertising products or services with empty abstractions isn't anything we haven't seen before. But they have to refer back to something at the end of the day. If someone re-tweets "Top 5 tips for Brand Marketing on Social Media" and can't point to a real world, extensional definition they might as well be saying "Top 5 tips for blab blab on blab blab." (With apologies to Stuart Chase.)
31.5.09
Change of Pants Required
Just stumbled across the coolest fuckin' metal website I've seen in a long time. It's called Metalgasm.com. It has the simplest premise one could think of: just name the point in a metal song that makes you, as a metalhead, cream your pants. And share with others for good times.
I've submitted a few myself, it's hell of fun!
I've submitted a few myself, it's hell of fun!
25.5.09
Yeah, Well, Cool.
I don't know about some people, but Twitter, the social media platform that I used to think was "Facebook without the Faces...or the books, for that matter" is just suited for my mind. In my schoolyard days, I would make quips and one-liners that would merely evaporate into the ether, never to be heard again. Then as time went on, writing for the satirical school magazines, I'd make up headlines without copy to go underneath - why should I? The headline was amusing enough, why sully it with even more words? If the joke delivers itself a laugh, why keep going and risk falling flat by adding more bullshit to it?
Trending topics like "failed TV pilots" allow for people to flex their creative muscle in a discrete format. I enjoy seeing some of the wonderful creations people come up with. Even better when others give me a "ReTweet" for something I've contributed.
Sure, some people (read: Elyse) think I'm a complete wanker, but for "media professionals" such as myself ("yeah, you're still retarded though" I can hear her say) that have something to say, no matter how condensed, it can be a very useful tool to connect to other people with. Doesn't that make you feel all special?
In actual news: I'm going to review about a million discs this month and I have an interview with Amorphis in the can. Sounds like...fun
Trending topics like "failed TV pilots" allow for people to flex their creative muscle in a discrete format. I enjoy seeing some of the wonderful creations people come up with. Even better when others give me a "ReTweet" for something I've contributed.
Sure, some people (read: Elyse) think I'm a complete wanker, but for "media professionals" such as myself ("yeah, you're still retarded though" I can hear her say) that have something to say, no matter how condensed, it can be a very useful tool to connect to other people with. Doesn't that make you feel all special?
In actual news: I'm going to review about a million discs this month and I have an interview with Amorphis in the can. Sounds like...fun
7.3.09
A Future of News
If you're an obsessive consumer of news and how its reported, the earth tremor that shook most of residential Melbourne and surrounds last night almost undoubtedly proved the growing irrelevancy of the printed media. Within 10 minutes of it occurring, 12 of my friends on my Facebook had reported it in their status. (Some with accompanying "It's the end of the world" comment, which had me lamenting that Carl Sagan might actually be right and that these people never paid attention during their Geography classes) With a turnaround of 12 hours as opposed to a propagation speed of minutes or even seconds, major events reporting will soon be the domain of internet-enabled citizens with newspapers taking a more supporting role such as analysis or criticism of the event rather than direct reporting. A compiler of citizen-originated event reporting could even be achieved using some sort of rudimentary tagging system. Even then its hard to figure that anyone will bother to read that, either.
20.1.09
Every Hour, On Your Hour
Trawling through the internet and Facebook the other day caused me to realize how fragmented experiences are getting these days. When I go to a party, photos are now expected to be taken and put up on Facebook. Same with trips overseas or across country; people upload a mess of photos and that's it; travelogue completed. The verbal element is all but eliminated and the days of regailing your friends with tales of your sojourn are over. "Here are all my pictures, you figure it out." Its sort of like the Lonely Planet guide you'd find in Fahrenheit 451. I know, I know, I'm an 80 year old trapped in a 22 year old body; call me old-fashioned for wanting to hear or read stories instead of looking at pictures. It's sort of like an on-demand travel slide-show party.
Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of on-demand. I don't sit down to watch TV any more; I download pretty much everything ahead of time (FastTrack just ain't fast enough) or shows that I can't get on TV where I live. Intelligent and brilliant shows such as Breaking Bad, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia or Snuff Box don't play in Australia (absent from both free-to-air and Pay TV) and if I want to see them, I'll have to download them. In the absence of a Hulu.com style service which I would gladly pay a nominal, reasonable fee for, I'm sort of forced to.
Australia seems to be the orphaned bastard child when it comes to distributed media services (especially when our fourth-rate internet service needs to be employed in order for it to function) and politicians and media owners wonder why no one bothers to invest in our entertainment and media industry.
Tomorrow (my time) shall be a most momentous occasion indeed.
Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of on-demand. I don't sit down to watch TV any more; I download pretty much everything ahead of time (FastTrack just ain't fast enough) or shows that I can't get on TV where I live. Intelligent and brilliant shows such as Breaking Bad, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia or Snuff Box don't play in Australia (absent from both free-to-air and Pay TV) and if I want to see them, I'll have to download them. In the absence of a Hulu.com style service which I would gladly pay a nominal, reasonable fee for, I'm sort of forced to.
Australia seems to be the orphaned bastard child when it comes to distributed media services (especially when our fourth-rate internet service needs to be employed in order for it to function) and politicians and media owners wonder why no one bothers to invest in our entertainment and media industry.
Tomorrow (my time) shall be a most momentous occasion indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)