Participation in online social networks & critical interaction with peers

To demonstrate a highly sophisticated degree of reflective awareness, here are a few examples of online social network discussions with some of my peers:

• The potential of new media technologies
• Today, we're going to teach you some fun facts about Salmon, And a brand new dance! (Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0)
• Social networking
• Are we Google dependent?
• Web 2.0 and Web 3.0...
• How do online communities organise themselves? What does it require to form an online community?

From media producers & audiences to produsers

(Bruns 2007)

Audiences now expect media producers to listen to their views and feedback. There is now a critical need for media producers to be responsive to their audiences because they control the majority of power these days due to the shift and re-negotiation of media power between the two. Media producers need to also engage effectively in new ways with their audiences in order to survive the competitive market. One of the reasons why produsers are becoming more powerful today is due to the introduction of new media technologies and increasing transformation of traditional audience members (Banks 2002, 190; Ross and Nightingale 2003, 159).

The traditional role of the audience has now evolved. The media producer and audience roles are now being blurred and the traditional boundaries are now being crossed. “The relationship between audiences/consumers and corporate producers is undergoing significant transformation. Entities such as "audience", “fan”, “producer”, “corporation” and “consumer” are relational and emerge from continually transforming networks of relations,” (Banks 2002, 190). The break down of barriers between producers and audiences termed produsers, is a continuous collaborative process of creating, producing and circulating new content via social networking and tagging utilities such as Blogs or YouTube. "Indeed, even those members of the networked population who choose for the moment to remain users, simply utilising the 'products' of the produsage process as substitutes for industrial products, are always already potential produsers themselves - and recent developments have made it ever more easy, and in some cases even inevitable, for such users to become produsers (for example as their very patterns of usage become direct inputs to the continuing processes of produsage)," (Bruns 2007).

Media audiences expect media producers to listen to their opinions, views and effectively respond to feedback. In order to be successful, the producers of media now need to be responsive and discuss any concerns with their audience. The producer-audience relationship is an increasingly complex and multifaceted one (Banks 2002, 212). Media audience research and practice suggest audiences are elusive and slippery entities, difficult to pin down and categorise (Banks 2002, 190). The new audience of produsers are central, interactive, powerful and involved in creating content (Banks 2002, 190). It is an important topic for those interested in media because there is a real need to understand the complex nature of audiences and the shift from active to interactive audiences.

At first glimpse, audiences appear to be simple and easy to understand however is complex and involved below the surface. Audiences are the critical link in the communication process and are often used as a figure of speech by various groups in society to support claims. The move from active to interactive audiences has sparked an increase in interest from those interested in media. Interactive audiences are those who actively involve themselves in the media and relate it and decode it to their daily lives (Livingstone 2005, 31). A disadvantage of the active audience is the ability for them to possess too much power and an advantage is that the active audience has a greater understanding of media use (Jenkins 2002, 167; Livingstone 2005, 31).

Produsers are gaining new power and greater autonomy over media producers as they enter the new knowledge economy and transform into interactive audiences (Banks 2002, 212). The World Wide Web, Web 2.0, digital technologies, convergence, new media technologies, networked computing and the Internet all present possible reasons for the significant increase in the power of the audience. It also presents potential loss of intellectual property of media producer creation when power is given to the interactive audiences for media (Banks 2002, 197).

Produsers are now unpredictable and it is becoming more difficult to understand audiences. Due to this evolution, audiences now have a greater control over media companies and this is now the routine way the new media systems operates (Jenkins 2002, 167). There is also a dependability of new media industries on the voluntary, free labour creative production of collaborative, decentralised fan networks and audiences (Castells 2001, 102). “These developments are inducing a new model of relationship between property relations and production relations in the generation and appropriation of wealth. There are areas of cooperation and common appropriation, linked to areas of competition and private appropriation. While these trends are still embryonic, they may herald a profound transformation of the social logic of innovation, productivity, and economic growth,” (Castells 2001, 102).

References

Banks, J. 2002. Chapter 8: Gamers as co-creators: Enlisting the virtual audience - A report from the net face. In Mobilising the audience, ed. M. Balnaves, T. O'Regan and J. Sternberg, 188-212. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.

Bruns, A. 2007. Produsage: A working definition. http://produsage.org/produsage (accessed 20 April 2007).

Castells, M. 2001. The Internet galaxy: Reflection on the Internet, business and society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive audiences. In The new media book, D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing.

Livingstone, S. 2005. Media audiences, interpreters and users. In Media audiences, ed. M. Gillespie, 10-50. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Ross, Karen and Nightingale, Virginia. 2003. New media, new audience, new research? In Media and audiences: New perspectives, K. Ross and V. Nightingale, 146-165. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

The shift from traditional production to the world of produsage

Produsage (Bruns 2007)

The relationship between media producers and audiences has significantly evolved and converged in recent years. This hybrid convergence has been coined produser by Axel Bruns, where usage is also productive (Bruns 2007). The shift in the relationship between the two now provides audiences with an increasing amount of social and culture power than ever before over the media they consume on a daily basis (Banks 2002, 190; Jenkins 2002, 168; Ross and Nightingale 2002, 40).

The boundaries between the producers and audiences have been distorted and crossed (Banks 2002, 190). Participants in collaborative activities are not producers in a convention sense because that term suggests a distinction between producers and consumers which no longer exists (Bruns 2007). Audiences are now adopting the more traditional roles of producers including creating, producing, continuously collaborating and circulating media content via Blogs, Del.icio.us, Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, Flickr and YouTube (Banks 2002, 190) and becoming produsers.

Produsage is beyond products, producers and production. It is an ongoing collaborative process and deeply embedded within every single individual human being, waiting to be unleashed every time we interact with a Web 2.0 or similar environment. MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Google Maps and Wikipedia demonstrate the increasing number of virtual audiences contributing to the World Wide Web by creating, editing and sharing content with others.

The removal of barriers between producers and consumers permits all participants to be users as well as producers (Bruns 2007). This is often in a hybrid role of produser where usage is also productive (Bruns 2007). Produsage is the process of collaborating and continuously building on content in pursuit of new improvements (Bruns 2007). “The produsage process itself is fundamentally built on the affordances of the technosocial framework of the networked environment, then, and here especially on the harnessing of user communities that is made possible by their networking through many-to-many communications media,” (Bruns 2007).

Jenkins (2002, 168) discusses the shift from active audiences to interactive audiences due to the introduction of new media technologies, convergence and participatory culture. The participatory culture refers to audiences participating actively and contributing to the culture of creation (Jenkins 2002, 168). There is a need to document the interactions that occur between consumers and media producers. The new participatory culture which is taking form at the centre of new media technologies and tools enable audiences to create, annotate and recirculate content.

In video games, audiences are often able to produce their own content and it is ultimately more satisfying to them. Development costs to the media producers are significantly reduce because they no longer have to create all of the content in the game as this is now the empowered audiences’ role (Banks 2006, 202). Benkler (2006) argues that non-market peer production is just as efficient as media producers and firms and also suggests that new media interactivity provides a platform for more democratic participation in creative and productive practice. “Peer cooperative production networks enhance capacity for creativity in loose collaborations without being limited to organise the activity through the constraints of the marketplace, price system or traditional industrial & hierarchical models of social and economic organisation,” (Benkler 2006).

It is critically important for the media producers to listen to the audiences because it significantly contributes to the commercial success of the media itself (Banks 2002, 189). Auran’s ‘Trainz – A railroad simulator’ relied heavily on user-generated content and on a pool of fan labour as a critical component of the project itself (Banks 2002, 204). The fan feedback in the design process had considerable influence on the design direction, production and development (Banks 2002, 204). Producers must listen carefully to their audiences and adapt to their needs, wants and desires in order to survive in the marketplace (Banks 2002, 189).

References

Banks, J. 2002. Chapter 8: Gamers as co-creators: Enlisting the virtual audience - A report from the net face. In Mobilising the audience, ed. M. Balnaves, T. O'Regan and J. Sternberg, 188-212. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.

Benkler, Y. 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bruns, A. 2007. Produsage: A working definition. http://produsage.org/produsage (accessed 20 April 2008).

Castells, M. 2001. The Internet galaxy: Reflection on the Internet, business and society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive audiences. In The new media book, D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing.

Ross, Karen and Nightingale, Virginia. 2003. Audiences in historical perspective. In Media and audiences: New perspectives, K. Ross and V. Nightingale, 12-41. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

The weird and wonderful adventures of cosplay

(Akihabara News 2007)

Before attending the Supernova exhibition in Brisbane on 6 April 2008, I was unfamiliar with the term 'cosplay'. To an outsider, this lifestyle first appeared to be strange and amusing at the same time. Cosplay is different to furry fandom. The term is short for "costume play" and is a Japanese subculture centered on dressing as characters from manga, anime, tokusatsu, television shows, video games, fantasy movies, Japanese pop music bands, Visual Kei, fantasy music stories and novels. In some circles like those present at the exhibition, cosplay has been expanded to mean wearing a costume.

Cosplay is seen at public events such as video game shows and pop culture exhibitions like Supernova. The whole pop culture experience brought back memories of my time spent in Tokyo's Akihabara district, with a large number of toy stores devoted to toys and figurines and several cafes devoted to anime fans. "Cosplay teeters somewhere between a healthy, semi-sanctioned way of acting out fantasies and the kind of red flag that's thrown up when you see a kid with a fascination for his parent's knickers," (McCormick in Lipke 2007, 18).

Photographer Elena Dorfman spent a year visiting 160 or more cosplay conventions including Anime Overdose and Yaoi-Con. "This is a new version of Trekkies, but way more sophisticated. It's an internal and external exploration of who they are, and what they'd like to be," (Dorfman in Lipke 2007, 18). This new generation of non-conformists are enamored with Japanese anime and video games in an inordinate effort to dress up as their favourite characters and act out parts of their lives in fantasy mode (Lipke 2007, 18).

The cosplay costumes are extremely elaborate and require the designer to spend months handcrafting their creation (Santoso, 1998). The costumes must adhere to the specific designs of the characters' outfit and the intricate details are very critical (Wikipedia 2008). Other cosplay performers will purchase their costumes from artists or designers in order to participate in costume contents at cosplay events (Santoso 1998). Cosplay can also mean the use of costumes for sexual purposes (Wikipedia 2008). It requires sexual play while dressed up and is also known as sexual role playing or fetishism (Wikipedia 2008).

The trend of cosplay has arrived in Australia and it is mirroring USA in which costumes may be chosen from sources other than just anime or manga (Wikipedia 2008). Any sources including comics, computer games, science fiction, fantasy movies, TV shows and novels provide inspiration for costumes. Cosplay is generally only seen in capital cities, however small social groups often host their own local events in regional areas (Wikipedia 2008).

The majority of participants at cosplay gatherings come on stage as their online avatars (Balakrishnan 2007). Why do people decide to cosplay in distinct online identities? It was found that women avatars created by men were very highly sexualised. Women on the other hand created their avatars to directly oppose the stereotypical female avatars by throwing in short hair and glasses to not present femininity (Balakrishnan 2007). This is a direct online extension of the historical battle of the sexes (Balakrishnan 2007). Web 2.0 assist people to reach online games, dating sites, social networks, blogs and virtual worlds.

In Japan, cosplay has attracted negative sexual connotations over the years and many Japanese people feel that cosplay is reprehensible (Wikipedia 2008). In contrast, Americans and Australians who cosplay often refer to themselves as "geeks" or "otaku" and use this to embody themselves in a sociological group (Wikipedia 2008). An otaku in Japan means standing on the bottom rungs of the nation's social ladder (Wikipedia 2008).

At the conclusion of the exhibition I came away with the opinion that while this lifestyle appears weird and amusing, as with any lifestyle or sexual choice it must be respected and not subject to mockery or ridicule.

References

Akihabara News. 2008. Latest news. http://www.akihabaranews.com/ (accessed 2 May 2008).

Balakrishnan, R. 2007. Proximity peeps into e-branding age. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. June 21.

Lipke, D. 2007. Compass fresh perspectives on style. DNR. 37 (17): 18.

Santoso, W. 1998. What is cosplay?http://www.nyx.net/~wsantoso/cosptext.html (accessed 30 April 2008).

Wikipedia. 2008. Cosplay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay (accessed 22 April 2008).

Online Social Networking Communities & The Future

(Rivier 2007)

Social networks constitute the new social change and the diffusion of logic substantially modifies the outcomes in culture, power, experiences and production processes (Castells in Flew 2005, 27). The rise of the networked society has produced a global and informational new economic and technological framework (Castells in Flew 2005, 27). The origins of the networked society rest in the diffusion of ICTS and the consequences affecting development of geographical regions, daily life, work trends, politics and social identity (Flew 2005, 27). The networked society is significant because it draws attention to the relationships between individuals and groups which are deeply embedded in cultural norms.

Online communities allow individuals to express themselves though participations and identify what information is out there in our economy. Flew (2004, 62) states online communities are based upon core principles of an inclusive, convivial and supportive culture. He also adds online networks allow new forms of community to develop which are based on educational learning, democratic citizenship, community-based wellness, economic equity, opportunities, sustainability, freedom of information and participatory media (Flew 2004, 65).

Social networking web sites have emerged as a communication element for young adults in the 21st century. MySpace and Facebook are two leading popular social networking sites which offer interactive services to its users. MySpace is one of the most popular social networking web site in the world, offering blogs, personal profiles, network of friends, photos, music and videos.

Will social networking consumers lose their habit as they age? An interesting approach to social networking is The Habbo Hotel concept. It involves creating of an online character, called a Habbo. Users are able to decorate rooms with furniture purchased by ‘Habbo credits’ which can be bought with credit cards, mobile phones or prepaid stored value cards.

Why do people get involved in social networking communities? Common answers include to connect with like-minded people from different walks of life, to debate and discuss issues and to socialise and make new friends. The real story is social networkers are looking for friends and a social life. Online communities satisfy basic human needs and desires to form social connections. It provides physical anonymity and convenience for its users and is one of the easiest ways to make friends. Online users are no longer simply trialling these sites, but adopting social networking as an important component in their continually evolving digital lifestyle.

Where will social networking take us in the future? One main concern is the future impact of the social networking trend on other online activities which are competing for a share of the consumer’s disposable time. Social networking sites can provide an alternative mass media approach to spreading global messages which are independent of traditional media.

References

Flew, T. 2005. New media: An introduction. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Rivier, D. 2007. Online Networks. http://online-networks.net/ (accessed 3 May 2008).

What's your teenage e-Society subculture?

(Fanboy 2008)

Teenage e-society has divided itself into distinctive subcultures due to the continued embrace of the Internet and World Wide Web in their every day lives. Results taken from a study of a residential school using findings from observations, surveys and interactions with students discusses how teenagers dominate online environments (Brown et al). The realm for teenagers in cyberspace forms a virtual subculture around them and resonates to the offline 'real world'.

The five main subculture fragmentations of teenage e-society include explorers, socialisers, gamers, transporters and publishers (Brown et al). If you're an explorer (37.6%), you primarily use the Internet to gather information. A socialiser (35.4%) is an individual who uses it to interact socially with family and peers. The gamer (14.9%) involve themselves in online gaming by playing solo or interacting in group play with other peers. Transporters (10.7%) are individuals who use the Internet to download files including movies, audio files and programs. Publishers (1.4%) upload and create content on the Internet for their own purposes or for the benefit of other peers.

Our economy is currently in an Information Age, which refers to the global economy's shift in focus away from the Industrial Age of the production of goods towards the manipulation of information. The majority of teenage e-Society utilises the Internet for exploring (37.6%). Kavanaugh (2005) suggests high Internet usage combined with geographical proximity results in increased communication among existing subculture groups. The close interaction online by teenagers increases subculture stability and it is typical to find gamers discussing gaming online and offline in the 'real world'. Information technology and the Internet relates to the use of electronic mediums to store, process, transmit and retrieve information. These technological advances have drastically changed the lifestyles of teenagers around the world and enabled the introduction of new niche industries around controlling and providing information to users. Since the invention of the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1989, the Internet has transformed into a global network for its users and teenagers of e-Society. It is currently the best place to speed up the flow of relevant information.

Teenagers are emotionally and socially linked to their use of the Internet and WWW, using the medium to break into cyberspace subcultures which are further integrated into their daily lives. The research article by Brown et al. (2005) is a successful research article because the findings are continued on from a previous study at the school and can be resonated back into the 'real world'. It was observed in the study that teenagers at school settle into one of the five subcultures within approximately thirty days of arriving at a school. It is interpersonal experiences which are the pivotal point of subcultures and computer usage since the early days of the Internet. It is particularly useful as an example of data for future research on the residential school and will also enable future researchers an opportunity to understand how the interests, behaviours, patterns and personality types reflect each individual teenage e-society subculture.

We are in a digital world where teenagers across continents unite to share ideas, compete interactively, download files, and work together to build projects and ideas. The development of wireless Internet increased the possibilities of personalising social networking and e-Society subcultures to a broader range of situations. Occasionally, teenagers use information for their own purposes to create and redistribute ideas for other peers and users on the Internet. John Gage (2002) states the Internet is not a thing, a place, a single technology, or a mode of governance. It is an agreement and in the language of those who build it contains a protocol or a specific way of behaving. The dramatic speed of the agreement is startling the world and sweeping across all industry areas including communications, media, governance and commerce.


References

Brown et al. 2006. Subculture Fragmentation of Teenage e-Society. From Iadis Virtual Multi Conference 2006. http://www.iadis.org/Multi2006/Papers/17/S019_WAR.pdf (accessed 3 April 2008).

Fanboy. 2008. Fandom Archives. http://www.fanboy.com/ (accessed 10 May 2008).

Gage, J. 2002. "Decentering Society" available from http://www.civmag.com/articles/C9910E03.html (accessed 1 April 2008).

Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B., Zin, T.T., Reese, D.D. 2005. Community Networks: Where offline communities meet online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Available from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/kavanaugh/html (accessed 24 March 2008).

Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0

(Digital Inspiration 2008)

Do you remember Web 1.0? Not long ago, web 1.0 was all about reading, companies, client-severs, HTML, home pages, taxonomies, portals, wires, ownership control, IPOs, Netscape, web forms, screen scraping, dial-up connections and hardware costs (Cong and Du 2007, 7; O’Reilly 2006; Treese 2006, 15). Web 2.0 contrasts its predecessor nowadays by being all about writing, communities, peer-to-peer relationships, social networking, blogs, XML, RSS, tags, wireless, sharing, trade sales, Google, web application, APIs, broadband and bandwidth costs (Cong and Du 2007, 8; Treese 2006, 15; O’Reilly 2006).

A key aspect of Web 2.0 is that it guides in an era of shared knowledge with no distinction between amateur, professional, consumer or expert (Cong and Du 2007, 8). The second generation of Internet primarily focuses on exploring online information and collaborative technologies such as blogs, wikis and social networking (Cong and Du 2007, 7; O’Reilly 2006). It is the evolution of the Internet into a place for communities of people to share experiences, ideas, music, video and pictures (Cong and Du 2007, 8). "The World Wide Web is being used as a platform to collaborate and share information in many new ways. Web applications are becoming a forum to discuss problems, contribute ideas, and provide solutions. These web services have become useful and popular because they enable people to connect to each other; and the benefits of this network effect grow even more powerful when more people use them," (Cong and Du 2007, 8; O’Reilly 2006). The production of ideas these days takes place in a collaborative, participatory environment which breaks down the boundaries between producers and consumers (Bruns 2007).

Web 1.0 is fairly one-sided in the collation of information online and offline, whereas web 2.0 is all about collaborating and produsage (Bruns 2007; Creamer 2008, 1). In today’s world of web 2.0, the thought of creating content is seemingly effortless to most online users. It has dramatically changed the way that people all around the world are connecting with each other. We are now sharing ideas and using our creativity for a greater good. Bruns supports this theory and argues, “user-led content creation in this new model harnesses the collected, collective intelligence of all participants, and manages— though in some cases better than in others—to direct their contributions to where they are best able to make a positive impact,” (Bruns 2007, 1).

The impact of produsage is intense for media producers because audiences often exert their new powers over them to achieve specific needs, wants and desires. A downside to creating content online is the uncertain nature of copyright and IP rights between media producers and their collaborative audience.

Collaboration and produsage is a feature of web 2.0 and will continue to be a prominent feature of web 3.0 in the future. Due to the increasing popularity and number of online communities, will offline communities completely disappear in the future? In my opinion, online communities will never fully acquire the personal, emotional and physical intimacies which are features of offline communities, however, several online communities are trying to close the gap.

References

Bruns, A. 2007. Chapter 1: Introduction: Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20-%20Introduction.pdf (accessed 14 April 2008).

Creamer, M. 2008. It's web 3.0, and someone else's content is king. Advertising Age, 79 (15): 1-2.

Cong, Y. and Du, H. 2007. Welcome to the World of Web 2.0. The CPA Journal 77 (5): 6-9.

Digital Inspiration. 2008. The difference between web 1.0 and web 2.0 http://www.labnol.org/internet/favorites/the-difference-between-web-10-and-web-20/665/ (accessed 5 April 2008).

O’Reilly, T. 2006. Web 2.0 compact definition: Trying again. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_compact.html (accessed 12 April 2008).