3.3: Are you worried about surveillance on or through Facebook? Why? Why not?

“Teens today grow up in a state of constant surveillance where there is no privacy. So they can’t really have an idea of it being lost. The risk of the government or a corporation coming in and looking at their MySpace site is beyond their consideration” (Westlake 2009 p. 32 quoting Berton 2006:A1).

My days of being a teenager are long gone, but I am also not worried about Facebook surveillance. I am aware that Facebook is in many ways a public place and, as with any public place, I understand that I do not have full control over what happens in it. I can only control what I submit to the site.

I could be filmed on CCTV when walking down the street, or be filmed on security cameras when entering a shop. I assume someone, somewhere is keeping a record of my credit card transactions, phone calls, TV shows I watch through pay TV,  tax returns, when I pay my rent, travel overseas, get a parking fine or visit the doctors. Be it they are different government departments and different businesses monitoring all these things that make up daily life but they are still monitored. Facebook to me just feels like an inevitable extension of this. I am not sure if its right, but it is reality.

 I am fine with Facebook collecting my data, as I am with other businesses and government departments doing the same thing, but in the same regard I don't want it used for immoral, unethical or illegal purposes. Facebook surveillance seems to me to be a big issue when put into the context of surveillance in every day life.

Westlake, E. J. 2008. Friend Me if You Facebook Generation Y and Performative Surveillance. Project Muse 52 (4): 21-40. https://auth.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi-bin/auth-ng/walkin.cgi?url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/the_drama_review/v052/52.4.westlake.pdf (accessed 14/11/11).

2.5 What are commons? In our current consumer/capitalist framework is it possible to even have commons in this context? Is the online environment a digital commons?

Coleman and Dyer-Witheford describe commons as:

“resources that all in a specified community may use, but none can own. They contrast with commodities, exchanged for profit on the basis of privatized possession.” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007)P934

In this context I believe that we do in some ways have commons in our current consumer/capitalist framework although they are more likely to be referred to as public areas and are not for the exclusive use of a “specified community”. We have parks, national parks, roads, and footpaths, crowned land, a water supply, libraries, and public beaches. Although it could be argued that governments own these resources – the governments are voted in by the general public who fund the upkeep of these resources through the paying of taxes. Therefore these resources could be said to be owned by all or none, depending on how you would like to look at it.

There are laws and regulations that govern our public resources or commons: such as speed limits on roads, fire safety guidelines in national parks, summer time water restrictions and laws that stop you staking out your own private little piece of Bondi Beach but they are put in place to preserve the commons, to ensure fairness, and to keep the general public safe when on common ground. Could we have common land without rules and regulations? I would have to say no. Our capitalist society works by one person taking ownership of a resource and trading for the resources of others. We do not live in a society where we only take what we need to survive; we take what we think we can profit most from. Therefore in this day and age our commons are legislated to prevent profit based on “privatized possession”.

Much like the offline world I believe the online environment is largely privatized but there are small chunks of it that could be thought of as commons. The world wide web is one example – this system of hyperlinks and urls enables us to make use of the internet and it is free – anyone can learn and use the code needed to make a website, but putting the website online is once again privatized through ISP’s charging for domain names. If anything Coleman and Dyer-Withefords article shows is that digital commons are not cut and dry. Companies own the intellectual properly rights to code, characters and the visual style of games. They may embrace the public playing on their turf or they may forbid people from using their code or characters to create new content entirely. In either case the companies still have IP rights over the content, and can choose to litigate at any time they see fit which sends mixed messages, blurring the line between commons and profitable privatization.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

2.4 Activity 1: Are online games escapist, serious, or both? Justify your answer.

Jenkins refers to an Salen and Zimmerman's idea of “the magic circle” when speaking about gaming. An idea he describes as letting “go of one set of constraints on our actions because we have bought into another set of constraints – the rules of society give way to the rules of the game” (Jenkins 2006 p.25). Therefore gaming could be seen as a temporary escape from the rules and monotony of every day life.

However, Jenkins also notes that the two worlds are not exclusive; stating “Two players may be fighting to death on screen and growing closer as friends off screen” (Jenkins 2006 p.25). In this scenario the game offers and escape from the everyday while simultaneously re-enforcing and strengthening bonds in real world.

The point Jenkins makes is that escapism has a very real, meaningful and some could say serious role in society. Playing games can create the opportunity learning, reflection and questioning of real world constraints in an interactive way.

Jenkins, H. 2006. The War Between Effects and Meaning: Rethinking the Video Game Violence Debate. In Digital generations, ed D. Buckingham. Massachusetts. http://edocs.library.curtin.edu.au/eres_display.cgi?url=dc60263484.pdf (accessed 19/10/11).

1.1 Notes: Critical information studies for participartory culture (part 2) (Jenkins 2009)

Henry Jenkins blog post discusses digital media and the everyday persons involvement with the creation of content (e.g. news or entertainment etc). His post stems from discussions from the University of Virginia conference regarding issues surrounding digital media that are seen to block a "more participatory society" (Jenkins 2009).

Main main points I have taken from this article are:

•  Fear - the internet like anywhere else has its dangers but these dangers are often amplified through the media and create a sense of fear which can prevent some people from participating in online society. Jenkins states that people need to be educated in the dangers of online communication and  need to be made aware of their "ethical responsibilities" (Jenkins 2009) when participating in digital media. Some wise words when you think about this in the context of cyber-bullying as education could only be helpful for not only children (being told what it is,  why not to do it, and who to tell if its happening to you) but would also be a great help to parents.
  
• The Digital Divide - This was always a term I associated with a lack of access to computers or a lack in computer literacy but as Jenkins points out it also about people feeling entitled to participate in online society. For example I know many young people who ban their computer literate parents from joining social media sites such as Facebook as they do not want to mix the family and social spheres of life together. This for me brings up further issues regarding identity, relationships and  and ideas about privacy which are all skewed slightly in the online environment. Do we all need to present out whole selves to everyone we have ever met just because we are friends in the online environment? Or should we be allowed to present the parts of us that are most relevant to the social situation we are in as we do in real life? (such as a professional demeanor for work colleagues, and more relaxed demeanour around friends)
  
• Reasserting Fair Use - corporations are having a "crisis of copyright" while citizen groups are having a "crisis of fair use" (Jenkins 2009). What this boils down to is that while we may have access to content and the ability to manipulate it, change it and reuse it we do not necessarily have permission from the copyright owners to do so which ultimately ends in litigation. I agree with Jenkins when he states “struggles over intellectual property may be the most important legal battleground determining the future of participatory culture” (Jenkins 2009) as this will determine if ones creativity is a criminal offence should they choose to reference the media influences of their lifetime.

Many other points were covered here too such as the role of collective intelligence in our education system, allowing social media in schools, the role of citizen journalism and its effect on traditional news media industries, segregation of social groups in the online environment, the construct of a global society and online governance and activism. The three points fear, the digital divide and fair use have been the ones I have been most drawn to.

 Jenkins, H. 2009. Critical Information Studies For a Participatory Culture (Part Two). http://www.henryjenkins.org/2009/04/what_went_wrong_with_web_20_cr_1.html (accessed 5/9/11).