WEEK 8

The fate of the state

This week’s readings discussed the idea of new media in relation to politics and government. They touched upon what might happen to the government in years to come as well as how media may influence/ impact on their prospective project plans.

I want to discuss two topics today, one being transparency and the other the role and influence of social media on the government.

Lessig (2010) discusses how the idea of a transparency movement aims to liberate data (especially government) “so as to enable the public to process it and understand it better, or at least differently.” Lessig promotes this idea that the public should actively engage and have access to projects that happen within government as well as how the government uses their personal data.

So does social media allow for more transparency in government?

I’d argue yes but only to some degree. Politician’s use social media devices to portray themselves as accessible and relatable and answering tricky questions that people might ask in an effort to gain their confidence and votes, thus achieving some transparency – that is showing via a public permanent forum that they have nothing to hide. Obama used Twitter during his presidential campaign as a means to create an intimate relationship with the people, which was believed to be a crucial component in his election.

The role of online news outlets have increasingly become more proactive into releasing and exposing government behaviour thus making the government more transparent and accountable to the public.

But is transparency a good thing? Do people need to know everything that happens? 

Lessig (2010) argues that there are both positive and negative implications from transparency. He believes that management transparency will improve how the government works due to making government agency performance more measurable through public visibility. Negatively Lessig (2010) states how “systematic understanding can happen as a result of bypassing or misinterpreting important details thus possibly resulting in the public’s trust in the government. 

In my opinion, I believe that current technology such as social media gives people a great platform to communicate their thoughts on anything they like, however do I think that everyone deserves equal say about topics? No, because not everyone is informed or educated enough to make a comment on what is happening/ or even protest change for something they do not look the like of (unlike how experts etc are educated and therefore can access/ comment on their fields of expertise). Hence why I believe that total transparency, which is where all government information is publicly visible to society, should not be allowed. I do believe, however, that certain transparency, such as where government funding is spent exactly, to hold the government accountable for their actions.

In relation to my final research project (which explores the role of social media in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution), I can see important connections forming between the use of Facebook and Twitter in the revolution by activists and how, as an older institution, the Egyptian government tried to limit and control social media’s use and influence. Many of this week’s readings helped me identify key themes through their exploration of the role of social media in the Occupy Wall Street events which will also help me in my research project.

I think that one of the main focuses of the project will be on how social media gave a voice and a platform to the people that would not have had the chance otherwise because of the repressive government, therefore social media clearly challenged existing political frameworks while the government tried to resist. I need to do some more research into how widely social media was used after the revolution and how much it is accepted by the new government in power.

 References:

[online] Styles, Catherine (2009) “A Government 2.0 idea – first, make all the functions visible’, <http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/>

[online] Pilkington, Ed (2011) “Anthony Weiner resigns over Twitter photo scandal”, The Gaurdian,  <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/16/anthony-weiner-resigns-twitter-scandal&gt;

WEEK 5

Interaction and Virtual

Interaction is a concept that involves two or more things having an effect on one another. In society humans thrive on interaction and with other humans, animals or objects for many reasons that include basic survival and avoiding loneliness. In more recent times, the improvement of technology has allowed for an influx in interaction across space and time through the creation of platforms and mediums that previously did not exist. Therefore humans that have never met before are now able to interact across what were previously barriers and limitations through different mediums such as Skype, Facebook and Reddit.

Even more recently, technology has allowed for more creative practices like virtual and augmented reality to flourish.  Dourish (2004) discusses how “interaction moves from being directly focused on the physical machine to incorporating more and more of the user’s world and the social setting in which the user is embedded” (Dourish 2oo4 p. 5).

Even though Google posted this Pokemon Challenge as an April Fools joke, it’s a pretty relevant and timely topic that shows virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR). The video shows an augmented reality, that is “a live, copy, view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented (or supplemented) by computer-generated sensory input” (wikipedia, 2014) through the presence of Pokemon on the google maps screen. It also shows virtual reality because Pokemon is a virtual world. Interaction is present because as a user, you can interact with the Pokemon through ‘capturing’ them on the google maps screen and become a Pokemon master.

Dourish also further explains how these virtual environments are beginning to create whole new forms of interaction and activity that potentially have negative consequences (Dourish 2oo4 p. 12). Through allowing the user to interact with the virtual setting, the brain can become over stimulated thus potentially deceiving it into believing such reality exists. 

The idea of incorporating VR and AR into society provoke multiple possibilities such as providing paralysed people the ability to identify the texture of virtual objects virtually through brain activity, as well as act as stimulators and educational tools in teaching how to fly planes. The possibility is really endless, however the need for such technology is not. Perhaps in the rise of people using VR to escape actual reality, physical human to human limitation will decline, and while it would be fun to become the best Pokemon master in the world and interact solely with technology, I’d rather family human-to-human interaction any day. Therefore in my opinion VR and AR, like most ideas we’ve covered in this course, should have a capped, controlled place in society where the human still has the ability to switch off and not become dependable on them.

References

Dourish, Paul (2004) ‘A History of Interaction’, in Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1-23.

Anon. (n.d.) ‘Augmented Reality’, Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality>

‘Google Maps; pokemon challenge’, YouTube, accessed 2 April 2014 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMD6xELI_k&gt;

[online] Anon. (2011) ‘Monkeys ‘Move and Feel’ Virtual Objects Using Only Their Brains’, ScienceDaily, October 5, <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111005131648.htm>