The sad life of a troll.

Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Cyber-bulling… in this day and age? The taunts haven’t changed over time just the name for it has, this new method of cruel teasing is known as trolling.

Trolling is extremely easy due to people’s anonymity on the internet. Internet trolls can say anything in the public sphere and remain anonymous or use a fake identity. The main intention of a ‘troll’ is to get attention from their remarks. Many women have been subject to public misogynist remarks and some are starting to feel scared to post online as they fear the backlash from males. Laurie Penny has been frequently threatened and subjected to feminism; she stated that “It would be nice to think that the rot of rank misogyny was confined to fringe sites populated by lunatics. But it is found all over the web – and it’s silencing its victims. Fighting it is not the same as censorship.”

In a recent BCM112 lecture Dr Tanja Dreher presented us with interesting facts and ideas about trolls and online misogyny. She revealed to us that the male presence and power online is much stronger online with only 1 out of 10 of the most influential people online was a woman, Arianna Huffington. Also she spoke to us about gender-bias sites and online segregation with Pinterest.com users being 97% women and only 3% men, whereas the site Dartitup.com user percentage was 88% men and a mere 12% women.

It clearly isn’t every man that is trolling women and it isn’t every person that is trolling in general, however, there are many sites that prove that online misogyny and trolling is extremely present. Laurie Penny mentions the site “Don’t Start Me Off!” which is a prime example of misogyny online and she stands up for women by exposing this terrible site to the world. There are many sites that are finally trying to bring an end to this trolling, some sites include #mencallmethings, The Anti-Bogan and Destroy the Joint.

The participatory culture of the World Wide Web allows for these people to say these hate-filled words publicly and until gatekeepers are more vigilant, this will continue.

“Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights.” – Bob Marley

A common societal thought is that the youths of today do not care about social and political issues. This view has been formed mainly by comparing the way the youths today and the youths of the past (in the 1970’s etc) acted towards social issues.

The kids today may try to dress the same as the activists at Woodstock celebrating freedom (hippies) and also they may feel they are as informed about social issues as the people at Martin Luther King’s march on Washington; however, they are generally not as ‘physically’ involved with issues as the youths of the past.

The majority of youth social activism is now done through social media and they are known as ‘clictivists’. Teenagers can now sit in their chair and then post their ‘social activist’ view on a medium platform, such as Facebook, Twitter etc. ‘Clicktivism’ in simple terms is when social media users ‘like’ a photo to cure a dogs cancer… which as we all know is impossible. These clicktivists generally just like a post without getting behind the cause or knowing too much about the issue and simply feel that by clicking ‘like’ they are helping.

“It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things.”

― Leonardo da Vinci

Activist work can benefit from social media posting. Seeing as most youths are on Facebook 24/7 social/political issues can go viral easily and most people will find out about these issues such as ‘KONY 2012’ and ‘Earth Hour.’ Henrik Christensen stated that “it is not possible to determine a consistent impact of internet campaigns on real-life decisions, there is no evidence of the substitution thesis. If anything, the internet has a positive impact on offline mobilisation”. A positive aspect of online activism is that more people are aware; the issue however is whether or not these people will participate in helping these causes. A problem with the KONY campaign is that it was a hoax and people that did sponsor it or spend money to help lost their money and this may discourage them from participating in social activism online.

REMIX HAS RISEN!

“Good artists copy, great artists steal.” Pablo Picasso

The ability to remix has given birth to a new way in which consumers use media. Consumers aren’t forced to just sit back, relax and view/hear media, now they can alter the media and create a new piece of art.

Remixing is all made possible and easier with the improved fast internet speeds, ease of access to media and also less restrictive ways to download media. People can now change media to personally suit them and their audience; this can be both positive and negative for the original creator of this media piece.

The positive side is that it may bring more publicity to the original piece, for example the song “Forever Young” by Alphaville has been remixed many times, most famously by the band ‘Youth group’ and by the rapper ‘Jay Z’. I heard the remix before the original and my likening for the remixes got me interested in the original which I ended up liking even more then the remixes.

A negative side to this remix is that I may not have heard that these were remixes and falsely credited the remixes as being originals

In the lecture Andrew Whelan related remixing to the word détournement. The word détournement relates to changing the meaning of a media work and presenting a new idea, hence its relationship to remixing

One of the big issues/ benefits of remixing are that it can change the whole meaning of a piece of media. The example used in our lecture was a YouTube video remix of Buffy (the vampire slayer) versus Edward (from Twilight); this remix undermines the original ideologies of both media pieces. The remix video completely changes the way the audience view Edward. In the remix he is creepy, obsessive and annoying; this is a massive contrast to the twilight films where he is romantic, charming and determined.

Tolkien’s Transmedia

In November 2012 I travelled to New Zealand with my dad to go hiking, on the way was a casual stop over to Hobbiton. The movie set where they filmed the Lord of the rings town, “the shire” was quite amazing. The landscape was magnificent, there were rolling hills, stunning vegetable patches and of course houses embedded in the hills. I felt like I was a part of Tolkiens’ fictional world! This is an example of transmedia.

“Transmedia storytelling represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience.”

When J.R.R Tolkien first wrote the Hobbit in 1937 for his children to read he would not have expected The Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings trilogy to become blockbuster movies, video games, short stories, parodies, movie sets, tours, a possible theme park and even this awesome air New Zealand safety clip.

The use of transmedia helps to appeal to a larger audience and more audience engagement. For example someone who has read the books may not like the movies but still would like to check out Hobbiton to see this interpretation of the book. Another example is that some people may not like reading and prefer just to watch a movie, which happens a lot these days.

The greatest improvement transmedia has made on stories is that it creates a fictional world for the audience to relate to and feel that they are apart of.

What is the world’s opinion?

It is possible for people to have their say on almost any subject and share this globally on the World Wide Web. Then other people in this mediated public sphere may also comment on someone else’s comment and it goes on like so until whole conversations between people are viewable on the Internet.

An example of an event that is displayed in the mediated public sphere annually, is the Golden Globe Awards this attracts viewers from all over the world. In 2011 The “Golden Globe ceremony was up 14 percent from 2009’s roughly 15 million viewers.” The 2010, 2011 and 2012 awards were hosted by Ricky Gervais and the reasoning behind its viewer increase is that viewers were eager to hear and comment on Gervais’ controversial presenting.

A large amount of people were offended by Ricky Gervais comments at the three Golden Globe awards he hosted as he presented an array of controversial comments on the Hollywood realm.

I personally thought they were funny and must admit Gervais is my favourite comedian, but some of the people that were the subject of his taunts did not and nor did their fans, and Gervais ‘haters.’ Gervais’ remarks were challenged by the mediated public sphere with articles deeming him as “racist, sexist and homophobic”… That’s a bit harsh.

The U.S., media rounded on The Office comic dubbing his performance ‘uncomfortable’, ‘corrosive’ and ‘abusive’.

Actors such as Christian Bale took it a lot lighter; he made this comment “Thank God for comedians. I’m hoping he’s going to keep going further.”Gervais thrived on the opportunity to scare people stating, “To be the most feared man in Hollywood for three hours is so much fun.”

It is interesting hearing EVERYONE’S view on topics, however some people take things too far and actually begin to try strongly influence people to agree with their personal hate or love towards someone.

Gate closing, please stand clear.

The game has changed but do you know how to hustle?

Nowadays almost EVERYONE in some way or another is involved in social media and different media platforms. Originally ‘back in the day’ people’s involvement was minimal, these people were ‘formerly known as the audience.’ But the audience is now the new participant, 30’s the new 40 and Androids the new apple.

These days anyone can present their opinion on the internet. Everybody is a commentator #mygrandmapassesbetterthanthat and everybody is a chef posting pictures of the food they made on Instagram, 10 years ago i wouldn’t have known what my best mate had for lunch unless I personally asked them but now their peanut butter and jelly sandwich is imposed on me. Most people now want to be heard. Facebook should say ‘sign up and Insert YOUR opinion here ______’

I’m not against presenting my personal opinion as you can see I’m doing it right now, and I also must admit that it is addictive. People are constantly checking their news feed, sports results, what events are taking place on the weekend etc and the interesting thing is, that all this information does not only come from credible sources. Someone may post a football result on Facebook that is not the correct score and the viewer could easily mistake this for being the correct result. Insignificant events such as this are not monitored by ‘Gate keepers’ people who monitor what does and doesn’t go on the internet or what is taken off the internet. Companies hire their own gate keepers, but a common form of this protection is allowing users to report a photo or post … then sending the information to the Gate keepers to take this down. But what if this information isn’t reported? What If this information is posted into a group page with supporters that share the same ideologies? An extremist rally date posted on the public domain would surely get taken down however; an extremist rally date posted on a private Facebook page that only these extremist members know about probably wouldn’t get taken down due to its secrecy and this is where the gate keeping system is flawed.

Any message can reach the global audience, so be careful what you post!

The Phat Controller

The media has to be controlled to a certain extent.

For instance, companies need to make sure that their program does not present any unethical or immoral ideologies from the TV presenters themself. They can, however, show an immoral event such as a murder, but they will of course present their personal view that what happened was a terrible event.

Think about this… when was the last time you saw a news presenter, or any news source be racist, encourage murder, or swear on TV? Hopefully never, and this presents the good side of media control as the owners would not allow this.

Now let’s look at the other side of control. When was the last time that you saw the media support a certain side of politics, or promote/demote a celebrity due to their best interest? This happens all the time! The owners of media companies such as News Corp and Fox will generally not allow for their media platforms to present anything that may hinder their amount of viewers. For example Fox news will not present the Middle Eastern view on the War in the Middle East because Fox is mainly based in America. Adolf Hitler showed the world in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s how it is possible to persuade people, through media, to follow you. Along with his minister for enlightenment and propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler was able to broadcast his speeches, ideologies and ‘Fuhrer myth’ to the German nation and the world. The media helped to give him Demi-god status, gain him full power of Germany and also time magazine man of the year… sorry what? Yes that’s right he was voted time man of the year in America in 1923

Imagine you owned a media company such as fox or Newscorp and your best friend was running for prime minister… would you publish a story on a sex scandal from their past or a gambling addiction they maintain, probably not.  So in these circumstances it is an issue when viewing the news from a biased source, but most people are biased in some way.

Personally I try my hardest to stray away from viewing the news; this is mainly due to the farfetched news and desensitisation presented by “news” shows such as ‘a current affair’ and ‘today tonight.’ The link below shows ‘The Chasers war on everything’ team mocking today tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG2tWuLTS_A

This video shows the poor quality of news; this quality begins from the top with executives and owners of companies ordering these stories to be published so they appeal to the mass public and instead of broadcasting a story on global warming and what we can do to help they’d rather a story on cats that eat garbage and turn into vampires at night due to the chemical imbalance of astronauts.

What came first the Apple or the Android?

Usually when I take a glance around a public space, there is a majority of IPhones on display as people text, call and search the web all in the palm of their hand. Recently, however, I have started noticing different phones on display, mainly Samsung Galaxies, which use an Android platform. At first I thought this occurrence was due to the Samsung Galaxy being cheaper than the Iphone and I somewhat still think this is the case.

After seeing recent debates of closed appliances versus generative platforms I have realised that there is more reasoning behind people’s sudden purchase of generative platform supported phone brands. Androids availability for ANYONE to create apps and change the whole system of an android phone allows its users the power to diversify their phones set up.

As to which system is better is really up to personal preference, however, the system which gives more power to its customers is the generative platform. This can lead to more success for the generative platform as instead of just having hired creators they have people creating from all over the world. A good example of this is the use of the hash tag on twitter, this was created by its users, and now it is a fundamental part of twitters set up.

An interesting example of Androids rapid rise is their large number of Instagram users. Instagram only opened for use on Android 17 months after Instagram had been released on Apple… and the users of Instagram is split almost evenly between the two. The Android had to play 17 months of ‘catch up’ and will most likely take over Apples amount of Instagram users in the near future.

In support of closed appliances it is comforting to customers that ‘nothing will go wrong’ with them, although this may not be the case all the time with Iphones still freezing and having glitches. Some customers on the contrary would rather to have the freedom of a generative platform and constantly change their system. This would not benefit Apple due to their planned obsolesce in which their products become old and people need new apple systems such as the Iphone 5 because certain apps only support this upgrade. Generative platforms on the other hand, don’t use planned obsolescence to the same extent as people can create almost identical apps that will suit their old platform.

Sharing was caring?

Copyright changed the whole concept of sharing. I put the emergence of copyright down to the fact that too many things are overly expensive these days.  Let’s look at it this way; if you bought a cheap car that you didn’t care much about you would most likely let a mate borrow it. On the contrary, if you had worked hard and finally got a brand new Porsche, most likely you would not let your mate borrow it.

My point in relation to copyright is that the creators of the big budget movies such as ‘Avatar,’ who spent 500 million dollars on their film, are rightfully protected by copyright as it would be completely unfair and unethical for someone to profit off a project which is extremely expensive. Also the creators of big budget films are not always certain that the money they have put into a film will become profitable. This happened to the “United artists” movie ‘Heaven’s gate’ which was made in 1980 for 42 million dollars and earned 3 million dollars.

In regards to people viewing copyright as overly controlling, I agree only in minimal cases.  If something like a simple (non professional) photo of a public landscape is uploaded onto the internet I think it should be free to public use as these are pictures of public places. There have been recent cases of people complaining about Instagram’s photo ownership, with Instagram simply using people’s photos as they please. I’m fine with this but I still think it would be common courtesy to reference the source, let’s be honest who doesn’t want credit for their work?

The following article shows cases in which people were not given credit for their work and their images were STOLEN by Instagram.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/us-news-blog/2013/feb/05/instagram-users-fightback-stolen-photos

Something I find extraordinary is that in the times of the likes of Shakespeare and Chaucer that copyright did NOT exist and this did NOT affect their credibility. Software freedom activist Richard Stallman stated ‘The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This practice was useful, and is the only way many authors’ works have survived even in part.’ This quote gets me wondering, what if there was copyright on something like the Ten Commandments, something which was passed down through history, a fundamental reading for certain religions. What is copyright stopping us from learning?

The pink elephant in the room…

Any advertisement that contains Hitler must be offensive right?

The Sicilian fashion brand “New Form” caused uproar in Palermo, Italy and all over the world with its appropriation of Adolf Hitler in their 2010 campaign “Change style – Don’t follow your leader.”

The way in which people interpret this image probably won’t vary as much as other controversial advertisements because initially it seems so shocking. The denotation of this image is a made up Hitler dressed in pink, with a love heart armband replacing his usual swastika and Nazi colours. Many would rightly be offended at the use of Hitler in advertising and also may interpret the image as undermining the seriousness of Hitler and the Nazi regime.

Local Palermo politician, Councilor Rosario Filoramo argued that “the use of an image of a person responsible for the worst chapters of the last century is offensive to our country’s constitutional principles and to the sensitivities of citizens.”The sheer shock of this image would draw me away from buying a “New Form”  product, due to a taboo of using Hitler to promote anything.

In looking at the connotations of this image, however, it becomes evident that there is more to this image then first meets the eye. The company tries to present a contrast to the usual image of Hitler by giving him female qualities and mocking him by putting bright make up on him.

Without the help of the slogan, “Change style – Don’t follow your leader,” this image is quite ineffective at getting its message across.  When I first viewed the image I had no clue what it was about until I saw the bland slogan (which didn’t really stand out). The message that “New form jeans” are trying to get across is that people should be individual and try their new range.

This campaign got publicity due to its shock value, but it was not beneficial and the campaign was quite unsuccessful.

Really, who wants to buy something Hitler endorsers?