April 14 -- "The Revolution will be Twittered" -- Tehran election protests and user-generated media (YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, etc).
* Study the Day-by-day mapping of the election protests in HyperCities and watch as many of the YouTube Videos as you can.
Andrew Sullivan Blog, "The Revolution will be Twittered"
Youtube video describing the project
Permalink to this collection in HyperCities
Technologies: AJAX -- Discussion by Jesse Garrett, the Inventor of AJAX
TED Talk:
Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity
Larry Lessig, the Net’s most celebrated lawyer, cites John Philip Sousa, celestial copyrights and the "ASCAP cartel" in his argument for reviving our creative culture.
The Hypercities technology is incredible, but what I was thinking is that if they could combine Hypercities with ARML, it would take it to a whole new level. I know that Hypercities functions as a historical catalog, but combining real-time access to culture around the world would be incredible. I look forward to seeing if anything like this happens.
ReplyDeleteI know that this is unrelated and an old technology but I just thought of it, and was wondering if anything like this has recently become available? and does UCLA have any of this tech?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxk_WywMTzc
http://ecopolitology.org/2010/01/07/usgs-develops-twitter-based-earthquake-detection-system/
ReplyDeleteRelated to the Twitter sensation, I found this article because I had read an article similar to it a few months ago. It talks about how it could be possible to use Twitter as a way of measuring or detecting earthquakes. I thought this was interesting to bring up because it is another use of Twitter besides merely telling someone how you feel or who you just saw. It has applications beyond fluff, and can make a real impact in the world. That's really all I understand about Twitter. The Hypercities thing was cool though.
What I was interested by was the video. Lessig talks about extremism on both sides, and I definitely agree with this. Companies have been quick to squash user-generated content, and users have been quick to reject copyright laws. I, like Lessig, believe there needs to be a middle ground. My favorite personal example is Hulu. Hulu allows users to watch up to 5 of the most recent episodes of any given tv show, which I think is more than fair. Also, the site is free of charge, allowing users to watch tv at their leisure, on their schedule. Hulu understands that they can only put up so many episodes before producers get mad that their DVD sales drop due to all the episodes being online. Hulu also understands that users like tv for free. Hulu balances it out by keeping both producers and consumers in mind, which everyone needs to understand.
To relate this to sites such as Youtube, producers need to understand that by giving consumers a few of their videos or songs they can get a lot more marketing at a cheaper price than if they did it themselves. Also, users need to be careful not to abuse the content given to them, either by putting it up illegally, or modifying the intent of the product. This requires a balance from everyone.
Library of Congress acquires the entire twitter archive.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.facebook.com/notes/the-library-of-congress/how-tweet-it-is-library-acquires-entire-twitter-archive/110775778955250
I think the main differences between new media and broadcasted media is that broadcasted media can be biased since it is represented from one point of view, while new media may also be biased but due to the sheer amount contributing power from the masses, one issue may be published in many different viewpoints, allowing the reader at least see more than one point of view, allowing them to determine their own opinions.
ReplyDelete2. I think that should be a matter decided within communities. Ex: the facebook community will eventually reach some sort of equilibrium on what's appropriate and not to share while an adult video community or something like that will obviously have differing standards of what's appropriate. So ultimately, these standards will be decided on a case-by-case basis and users will need to adapt and accept those differing standards if they wish to be apart of those communities. As long as a website is upfront and warns the user (such as the warnings youtube gives when viewing mature content flagged by its users), then sharing anything is fine because those who do not wish to see it can choose not to.
3. I think twitter is a revolutionary technology, it allows anyone to reach a worldwide audience, removing the traditional barriers of entry to broadcasting. This essentially shrinks our world and allows anyone to have the ability to influence the world, which to me is quite revolutionary. And so my definition of revolutionary is something that introduces a new and useful dimension to doing something existing or new.
1. Established media (broadcast) vs New Media
ReplyDeleteWhat are the key differences? Is new media truly new -- if so how? Is this a 1.0 vs 2.0 difference? What is Read/Write Culture?
2. Culture of Sharing -- How do we draw lines between what's acceptable and what's not?
* user moderators; let the moderators decide or let the masses decide
* why shouldn't it be shared? why do we care about copyright?
* what do I need to post to get banned from facebook for a week????
WHO DECIDES?!
* over-sharing vs. in person sharing -- redefining public/private? what's acceptable and what's not.
3. Is Twitter a revolutionary technology? How so or why not? How would you define a revolutionary technology?
changes the way people use media; anyone can broadcast -- but the implication is that anyone can see it! Therefore it's truly public. no control over who sees it.
Post article on Library of Congress acquiring twitter history.
Why archive? What's not saved, lost?
vs. is it just a fad? 140 characters: short attention span, culture of instant;
"hyper-attention mode" vs. "deep attention"
Twitter as evolutionary not revolutionary;
Food trucks: Where they are now.
Twittter of our culture is found on twitter.
3rd party applications built off twitter
WHY Don't you tweet?
1. Established media (broadcast) vs New Media
ReplyDeleteWhat are the key differences? Is new media truly new -- if so how? Is this a 1.0 vs 2.0 difference? What is Read/Write Culture?
One of the key differences between the old media and the new is that we are no longer merely exposed to the main broadcasting companies that may be biased (ex. Fox is known for being conservative). Often times, the average person is not conscious of the fact that each broadcasting company has their own biases and many also happen to rely on one source rather than getting a variety of sources and comparing what is being said. Because of this, their viewpoints are influenced by what they are hearing/seeing on these established sources of media.However, because the new media opens up a door for the masses to give their opinions/perspectives on things that are happening around through a popular source, people are more able to see many different aspects of the same events and realize that things are not as simple as they had originally seemed when they had only depended on one source.
Watching the TED video was very interesting and Lessig made some valid points regarding the regulation of this new content online. As our society transforms more and more into a technology based culture it is only obvious that our culture would become more technology based as well. In the video Lessig talks about Sousa and his fear that "talking machines" were taking over the culture and detracting children from singing the songs of the day. Lessig later makes the point that these new videos online have become the songs of the day for the children of this generation. It seems interesting then that their creative expression in the form of youtube videos is so heavily regulated whereas the creative expression in the form of songs in Sousa's day was not regulated at all. Sure, there needs to be a middle-ground in the issue of copyright law, but depriving this generation of using any copyrighted material is only a way of suppressing creative outlet that in no way harms the original copyrighted material.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, there is also the fear of material abuse if people are allowed to take whatever they want and remix it. The original creator may have meant for something to be serious but because of someone's new twist on their work, it now carries a new meaning for the public.
ReplyDeleteI think this also brings up the issue of what the rights of artists are. Exactly who can be considered the artist in society now anyways? In terms of remixing, can anybody just take someone else's work, modify it a little bit and put it out in the open? After all, art is meant to be shared.
The Larry Lesig video is very interesting in that it brings up some very valid points about the regulation of the media that kids from today are using in our culture. Because a lot of the media that is used is often said to be "against the law," kids today begin to be desensitized to the idea of breaking the law and it is no longer as big a deal as it may have been back in our parents' generations. While of course artists need to make money and their media can't be given out solely for free, it seems to be counterproductive also to label some of the things to be illegal. However, finding a middle ground and a way of regulating whatever middle ground is chosen, is something that is not only very complicated, but also extremely difficult to come to.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20004114-36.html
ReplyDeleteHow youtube is expanding...