Social Media: Future Trends.

Looking through my blog entries you will see I have discussed a number of different forms of social media and their different applications. I have discussed things such as: online documentaries, smart phones, YouTube, cybersex communities, second life communities as well as online activism.

From these different areas of social media I believe one stands out with the potential to dominate the eLandscape and become even more popular than it already is. I am of course talking about the ‘Smart Phone’ and its potential to revolutionise the way in which we communicate with one another.

We have so far, seen amazing developments in mobile technology and only in a relatively short amount of time. In a matter of decades we have gone from bulky ‘bag phones’; that required external power and only worked in scarcely available ‘transmission zones’, to having a powerful, handheld communications device that has the basic functionality of a home PC. And this is only the beginning. . . .

In recent years we have seen an increase in the number phones that can readily access the internet and do the same basic things a home computer can do. Tasks such as sending emails, browsing the web and viewing photos and videos are all able to be done on many smart phones.

We have seen a number of different forms of media and other devices being integrated into phones including: Still camera, video camera, web browser, portable gaming device, portable music player and video player to name a few. I predict that in the future all of these aspects are going to be improved and re-developed continuously as micro-technology continues to evolve.

I now come to my FUTURE PREDICTIONS for the smart phone. These are aspects of the smart phone that I believe will happen in the near future.....

Increased connectivity: The increased ability to connect wirelessly to music players, T.V’s and computers.

Increased internal capacity: Used much like a portable hard drive, larger amounts of content could be stored on smart phones.

Improved camera: The in-built camera would continuously improve to rival the picture quality of purpose built digital cameras. People would no longer have a need for a digital camera.

I-phone copycats: The innovative design of Apple I-Phone will no doubt be copied by other phone manufacturers. I believe that the idea of phone applications or ‘apps’ will also be copied. This has been seen in the past with the development of the HP all-in-one PC, yet Apple I-Mac developed this technology long before.

Increased computer-like functions: I believe smart phones will become a lot more like computers, in the sense that people will be able to run programs like: Microsoft Office, and Photoshop on their phones.

To realy simplyfy my future predictions please look at this LINK (Asus Portable PC) and also this LINK (Apple I-Pad). These two pieces of technology combined with mobile phone functionality is where I see the future heading!!!!

We are living in a time of rapid growth in information technology and I believe that the above predictions; among many others, are all possible and I think that we will be seeing some of these changes in the not too distant future.

Online Documentaries: Cutting the red tape.

Documentary films have become very popular in recent times and we see more and more documentaries making their way onto the big screen. It was not always common for documentaries to be shown in cinemas, however now we can see quite a few documentaries in cinemas. Films like Fahrenheit 9/11Bowling for Columbine, An Inconvenient Truth and Super Size Me have all been recognised in the professional film industry and have been screened in cinemas worldwide.

The reality that faces any producer; whether it be documentary or otherwise, is that if they want their work to be funded and distributed on network television, DVD’s and in cinemas, the producers must persuade the publishers and distributors that its worth making. The tasks of justifying the viability of their work to the ‘higher powers’ would be much harder for documentary films as the topic of the documentary is basically the essence of the film and that is all they have to really pitch to executives. If the topic is not conducive to the executives or if they believe it’s to confronting or too filled with bias or social activism, then they may not accept the film.

This ‘Red Tape’ that film makers must cross makes it very hard for makers of documentaries to enter their films into mainstream media. So what are the budding documentary makers to do if they can’t get their work published mainstream?

Enter YouTube.....

The absolute explosion in popularity of YouTube has seen an abundance of video footage made available to anybody with an internet connection. YouTube obviously has many strange or silly clips that are not relevant to anything at all, but if you look hard enough you will actually find some videos with some real substance as well as many amateur or semi professional documentaries. Ana Vicente states “the relatively uncommercial aspects of documentaries; throughout history, has forced the genre to the continuous search for its ideal platform”. Well the closest thing to an ideal platform has established itself, this platform undoubtedly is YouTube.

Here you can see an example of an amateur documentary made by an enthusiast and posted on YouTube.

And here you can see example of a semi professional documentary film that perhaps may not have had any air time on mainstream television.

Birchall argues: “Documentary has to be considered in a wider sense than in film and on television: limits on length, amateur production values and emergent aesthetic forms mean many things are found online that would never make their way to a television or cinema screen”. Here, Birchall is basically saying that because of the stringent requirements put on film makers by network television and film; that are primarily focussed on ratings and popularity, would be documentary makers are unable to share their stories through traditional mediums. With the aid of online video sharing, film makers can now post their work online regardless of the subject matter or popularity of their work.

Here is an example of a documentary that would probably never be aired on network television or in a cinema. It is a pointless clip, yet appears when you search ‘Documentary’….

We can see that anyone with a video camera or even mobile phone is now able to make a documentary and then publish it online. This then enables makers of documentaries to bypass the ‘Red Tape’ yet still share their work with millions of people. Although their work may not be shown on television or in cinemas, by posting online, they are still able to spread their work and post documentaries about any subject they feel passionate about, rather than whatever subject will sell the most DVD’s or make the most money at the box office.

Smart Phones…. Are they a matter of need, or want?

In the past decade we have seen an absolute boom in mobile telecommunications. We have seen the mobile phone transform many times since its introduction in the 1940’s where the user was required to stand in one of few existing ‘transition zones’. The mobile phone then evolved into ‘bag phones’, where the phone was housed in a briefcase and required external power. From this, the mobile phone truly became ‘cellular’ in the 1980’s and has evolved even further during the 90’s and into the 21st century.




The result from this rapid evolution in mobile technology is what we know today as the ‘smart phone’ (think Blackberry or I-Phone). These smart phones do much more than just make and receive calls and texts, and have more computing power than some early computers. They are now essentially portable entertainment devices that integrate things such as web browsing, video and audio content, as well as video cameras.

The mobile phone has no doubt changed the way in which we function in society and have ensured people can stay in touch no matter where they are or what they’re doing. As Paul Levinson said “the mobile phone cut the umbilical cord of the landline phone” and has “liberated us from the home or office”. Whether this change is for the better will always be a topic of debate. The majority of people own a mobile phone (sometimes two or three) and rely heavily on them in their day to day lives. Whether people use them just for making calls or people use them for web browsing and entertainment, it is safe to say that they play a big part in people’s lives.

The question now seems to be, is do we really need these smart phones? Mobile phones to make and receive calls, yes of course! But smart phones in particular, do we really need another screen in our lives to browse the web, to watch videos, to play music? And finally, is the mobile phone screen going to become the dominant screen of the 21st century? It is certainly looking this way.

I believe that having a smart phone is a matter of want more than need. The entertainment value; and perceived social status surrounding owning a smart phone, will be primary motivations for people to buy them. As Paul Levinson said the “Blackberry or I-Phone makes all of those formally useless places useful”. This means that whether we are waiting for a bus or in a lecture… what… I mean… waiting for a bus, we can now be entertained very easily with the help of a smart phone. I also believe that smart phone owners may rely too heavily on them. For example, people I know will take a picture of a document or voice record a memo or number rather than writing it down. They may rely on their phone to search for information or even rely on them to get them somewhere (GPS function). The question then becomes, what will you do if this technology fails? If you rely so heavily on your smart phone, what will you do if it breaks?




I do strongly believe that the mobile phone screen will become the dominant screen of the 21st century simply by noticing the trends happening now in the way of compiling multimedia functions into a single device. According to Paul Levinson, this idea of media convergence has been recognised for decades as an important principle of new media evolution. I believe the evolutionary trend will continue to the extent of one day we will have all the functionality of a laptop computer with the mobility and communicative ability of mobile phones. Just look at the new innovation from apple, the I-Pad. This is the next step in the evolutionary phase of mobile communications, and just wait to see a mass of companies trying to compete with; and out-do, this innovative product.

YouTube: The good and the bad.

“YouTube can be used effectively by political parties and politicians. However, there is also the danger of political figures being subjected to ridicule through satire and parody”…….

It is no myth that many of the world’s political leaders have embraced the communicative power of the internet. One only needs to look at the Australian Prime Minister’s website or the American President’s website to see that they are using the internet in order to further reach out to the population. On their homepages you can see links to social networking sites such as twitter, facebook, myspace and even youtube.

One of the first instances where a political leader has used the internet to communicate their message; to what is a global audience, would be that of John Edwards. This U.S senator decided to announce his candidacy for the then upcoming presidential elections via his personal website. This stunt was not as well received as expected, as only a small number of people actually looked at his website and viewed the video from that single location. Although this political move had all the right intentions, it was not a very successful way releasing such important information. Since this happened, there has been a shift to people using the video sharing site YouTube. Now rather than posting videos on individual sites (with little potential of receiving views unless the site itself is popular) people can now post on a centralized video sharing platform that has now become the standard or norm for this type of online media. People and politicians alike have now joined the bandwagon in order to spread their message to the masses.

Just like any online social media platform, there are many benefits as well as some risks associated their use. YouTube http://www.youtube.com/ is no exception. If a politician was to take advantage of the video sharing powerhouse that is YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/ they will no doubt reap a number of benefits. They may also be faced with some very real risks. These benefits and risks have been outlined below:

BENEFITS

• Communicating to a global audience: Network T.V is pretty much restricts a message to the country it was broadcast. However, a message broadcast on YouTube can be seen by anyone and everyone the world over.


• Unlimited lifespan of the message: As it stands today, posts on YouTube are there indefinitely or until the ‘poster’ takes it down. A message broadcast on TV will disappear after it has been broadcast would could be said to have a limited lifespan.


• Reach out to a larger demographic range: including gen x , gen y and more specifically gen z


• Empowers others: YouTube empowers other content producers and even ‘produsers’ to post ‘video replies’ on the website, or even to create their own (often humorous) content geared toward a particular topic. This topic in question could very well be a political leader. A prime example of this idea of creating content relating back to a political leader is that of ‘Obama Girl’ . Whether people think this YouTube clip was good or bad, no one can argue the fact that it boosted awareness and interest in both Obama and the girl singing.

RISKS

• Run the risk of purveying an undesirable image: Video content is able to be edited and manipulated in so many ways, and can either show the subject in a positive or negative light, as well as impose a certain ‘image’ around that person. Take John Howard in this video. Although its content may be important to some, the way that it’s shot and set out is quite mundane and drab.


• Open for parody: It’s safe to say that almost any public figure or celebrity will at one point be parodied on you tube, and political leader are no exception. Just look at the parodies done at people like: Sarah Palin, George Bush, Barack Obama and even our own Kevin Rudd!


• Nasty comments: As we know, YouTube gives people an opportunity to place comments below a previously posted video. Sometimes the comments can become quite abusive and attract the wrong kind of attention. This negative attention may very well deter other people from visiting the page and seeing the video.

So we can see that YouTube can most definitely be used effectively by political parties and politicians. However, they do run the risk of being subjected to ridicule and parody, just like any other person who chooses to post on YouTube.

Produsers: Productive users? Or simply producers lacking originality?

According to Bruns (2008) “There is an absence of producers, distributors, or consumers, and the presence of a seemingly endless string of users acting incrementally as content producers by gradually extending and improving the information present in the information commons, the value chain begins and ends (but only temporarily, ready for further development) with content.”

This statement made by Axel Bruns relates to the idea that users of media content are no longer just static end users and are now taking an active role in manipulating and re-distributing already existing media content. This trend has been now given the name ‘Produsage’, and the name of people partaking in Produsage is Produsers. This growing trend of Produsage has been identified in recent years and has become much more prominent on the web with the development of websites such as Youtube, Myspace and Facebook.

So it is evident that Produsage does very much exist on the web today. One only needs to look on Youtube to see the abundance of music remixes, song covers, track mash-ups, video compilations and re-acted scenes from movies. (Click on the links for examples!!!) All of these examples show that either the already existing concept, video or audio material and manipulated it in some way.

This now raises the question of whether Produsage is a good thing or a bad thing, and whether Producers are values adding productive users of the content, or simply producers who are unable to create their own creative concepts or ideas........ WELL, firstly, I thing that Produsage is a bad thing and is just a newer example of how people are benefiting from ripping off original copyright owners, (think pirated videos and music). Instead of people simply copying original work in its entirety and re-selling it (piracy), with the help of newer technology people are now altering original content and being credited as having produced it.

Since the introduction of websites like Youtube, it has become very easy for people to post re-developed or ‘prodused’ content and then re-distribute it to a global audience. This has caused many issues surrounding copyright laws and anti-piracy laws. Youtube itself has acknowledged this fact and have taken measures to reduce ‘prodused’ work that hasn’t been properly credited to the copyright owners. A recent copyright case that reflects directly to ‘produsage’ and people using other peoples work, is the case of Youtube v. Viacom.

Now I guess I should relate this rant back to the subject in question, which was “whether the value chain of the product begin and end with content”. Well to put it simply, I disagree. The value of the content alone cannot really be valued the same as the original concept or the piece of work in its entirety. Without the original concept, there would be no content. I don’t think anyone values a ‘prodused’ piece of work anywhere near as much as an original work, although they are both in fact using the same content. Produsers are simply people that wish to benefit from other peoples creativity and originality.

Cybersex….. Now everyone can get lucky!

With the internet ever growing and expanding, it is becoming more popular and accessible every day. As the internet evolves; so too, does the content and information provided on it. It can be said that 20 odd years ago, sex in cyber-space or ‘cybersex’ as we know it, was only a figment. However now, online pornography, cybersex and online porn communities exist in abundance. Today, people can access a plethora of erotic material on the internet and can do so, anonymously, discretely, cheaply and as often as they want.

This over abundance and ease of access to erotic material seems to now raise the question of whether this has a positive or negative effect on our society or is it simply an unstoppable thing that we all must learn to live with. It has been noted in A.C Hall and M.J Bishop’s book ‘Pop-Porn’ that there is growing concern surrounding accessibility of erotic material. The writers go on to make the connection of: “Library’s have computers, computers have the internet, the internet has porn and children can access these computers at the library. Does this mean this is now a library for porn?” This connection makes the point of how easy children can access the internet and anything within it. There have; of course, been measures put in place to limit children from accessing such material. Internet filters have been developed to lock out unwanted websites, but is this enough?

Another point of concern (that has existed for almost as long as the internet itself) is the issue of security. Many people are aware that there is no guarantee that a person that you may be interacting with on the internet is in fact who they say they are. This issue; especially in regards to online porn communities and intimate chat websites, has been a major point of concern as it is known for being prone to attracting older men to chat with younger (sometimes much to younger) girls. As we know, no one is ever who they say they are in these online interactions.

With all these possible dangers aside, it still seems that many, many people are using online porn and undertaking cybersex activities. It has been argued that internet porn can be addictive, in one article in particular: Internet Porn: Worse than crack? The author has gone as far to say that an internet porn addiction could be compared to a drug addiction such as crack cocaine. Is this possible? I don’t think so. I believe that the two cannot even be compared. The only similarity that I would agree with is the fact that the internet can be addictive no matter what websites one chooses to use. In the way of online porn and cyber, I think it could be quite addictive for people who may not have the best luck in their sexual endeavors in everyday life. Websites have since been developed that take advantage of people’s potential insecurities and can enable them to interact sexually in a virtual world, where their physical or social flaws are irrelevant. Websites like ‘Red Light Centre’ do exactly this and give people the chance to make an ideal virtual self (much like second life) and then engage in flirting, chatting and even cybersex.

So is online porn and cybersex a bad thing? I don’t think so. I believe it should be there for people who wish to use it but should not be wide spread and displayed on every website you visit. With the way the internet is at the moment, anyone can create websites and post them on the internet. So until there is any regulatory enforcement of web content, it is the counteractive measures people must take if they are to steer clear from cyber sex and online porn.

Can we really call this reality?

“Shared experiences create a sense of reality”

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

These words written by Mark Stephen Meadows have some merit and I do agree with them to an extent. Even in a virtual world there is still interaction between people. Even though these people are represented digitally as ‘Avatars’, they are still under the complete control of real people in the real world. An example of a virtual world that is inhabited by avatars is the program 'Second Life'. This platform allows people to live in the program and do anything they could do in real life. Does this then make a virtual world reality?

Meadows states that “When another person confirms what I am seeing, places value on it, spends time working to pay for it, buys it, keeps it, uses it, talks about it, gets emotional about it, and then sells it – this tells me there is something real happening”. These shared experiences are supposed to create a sense of reality and in a way it does. I think that the interaction between people does validate a sense of reality. However, the platform in which this happens is very un-real.

In a world that has little or no governance and lacks law enforcement and even laws for that matter, it is hard to suggest that a virtual world is reality.

Also, think for a minute that this virtual world that a person can; on some level, ‘live in’ can all be ended at the drop of a hat. If the creators of the program decide to shut down in ‘real-life’, then the entire existence of this virtual world and everything in it suddenly becomes extinct. Just take a look at the similar avatar-based social world that is 'there.com'. This entire world, along with everything and everyone in it is now completely non-existent. The amount of time, effort and money users have committed to this virtual world now equates to nothing. This fact now raises the question of whether you could consider this reality. A world that could be ended so easily by its creator cannot possibly be considered as reality nor even closely replicates the concept of reality.

Although Meadows is right in saying that shared experiences; that involve other people, can in fact create a sense of reality, he doesn’t seem to be addressing this concept relative to the real world. It is fine to say that when people build things, use them, sell them, trade them and discuss them in a virtual world it creates a sense of reality, but I think this can only be true in the sense of the interactions between people and the relationships built when using this virtual platform. Every other aspect of a virtual world is however, superficial and cannot be considered as reality. The endless complexities of real life, I think, just cannot be replicated in a virtual world and so, can not really be considered as reality.