New Media: Master or Slave.

New Media is becoming an increasingly integrated part of everyday life, with the internet fast becomeing a basic human right and fast replacing both postal mail and most forms of print media in terms of popularity, the question of whether new media is our master or our slave becomes all the more important. New Media is master only to the extent that we allow it to be.

Email can often be peoples master as most people check their email daily even though everyone knows that the vast majority of their mail will be junk that they dont want or need, be it spam, chain letters, or communications from people we are trying to ignore.

SEX. Do I have your attention now? Good. Read on.

If you have ever ventured into the land of Chat Roulette, chances are that you will have seen a dude in a really compromising position.

With the birth of the Internet came the invention of a million and one ways to access sexual content. Whether it's photographs, Mills & Boone for the Net Geners, or letting anyone with a webcam watch you engage in some serious self-loving, as a community the Internet has exposed the truth about humans: they think about sex a fair amount.

As a new form of community, the Internet has also forced the invention of new ways for the people of its community to interact with one another and their new environment. One of these interactions which has made the transition from physical to digital space is sexuality.

Sexuality is the human desire to be intimate with others, and to express this intimacy physically. Often this can be difficult, as the propensity to trust another human is not something that one can force. Trust boundaries between people can be something of an obstacle for intimacy to be achieved.

In the Digital Age, however, these boundaries are broken down when people interact over digital space, as they are removed from the physical presence of the person they are trying to create intimacy with. There is an argument that intimacy is only imagined when people are not in the same physical space, as the element of touch is missing, but cybersex is a stress on the importance of fantasy and the independence of a person created by, ahem, a little 'self-love'.

Cybersex could be a viable solution to many problems of 'actual' sex. Often the most difficult part of any sexual act is the mutual anxiety about anticipating how the other person will respond to certain things, which breeds an atmosphere of worry and fear- the exact opposite of what sex is supposed to achieve.

Cybersex also removes the potential for STIs and unwanted pregnancy, not to mention the Awkward Morning After Dance, or person-shaped hole in your bedroom wall/car door.

And the best part would be that the other person can't see the funny faces you might make.

As long as you're anonymous, huh.

The Good of Second Life

Since we so often focus on the sleazy side of technology and the harm it can do, I'd like to dedicate a post to some advantages of virtual worlds, specifically Second Life. I am by no means a proponent of Second Life. In fact, I dislike it as a social network for many reasons, but there are definite educational and work advantages to it.

In a previous course at my home university I had a term project that required me to create a Second Life account and participate in the world. The goal was to become an expert on all things Second Life and report back to the class on my experience. Naturally I came across the dodgier side of the world, often being engaged by less than savory characters. However I learned a lot about the innovative uses of virtual space for educational and business purposes. Many institutions have created “islands” for their students and employees to meet in. Both universities and businesses can hold in world conferences and classes for people who normally would not be able to attend such functions. For classes specifically, Second Life offers individuals opportunities to not just learn about their subject, but to experience it. Of course the experience is still dampened by the fact it is not actually hands on but it definitely is a step in the right direction.

A really good example of the use of creative space in Second Life came from the University of Sydney. The island incorporated areas where Greek mythology students had recreated scenes from different myths. Near each scene was a brief write-up about the myth. On the other side of the island was a hospital. This was particularly interesting, because it integrated action functions where avatars could take on the role of patient, nurse or doctor. It allows med students to apply their knowledge in virtual role-playing created and moderated by educators (Sanchez, 2009).

So there you have it! A lesser discussed topic of virtual worlds, but it is important to remember that legitimate steps forward in the use of virtual technology are happening alongside the sketchier bits.

Sanchez, J. (2009). Pedagogical Applications of Second Life. Library Technology Reports, 45(2), 21-28. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Wikileaks and Privacy

There has been talk about privacy on the internet with individuals. This has been discussed about what apple's contracts do when apple gets hold of information about you and spreads it to marketing compaines or possibly some actually dangerous hands on the net.

This is all very fine and well for individuals but what about what is happening with Wikileaks releasing documents on the Afganistan war and the public safety at large?

These documents contain various things including drones attacks that can be discribed as war crimes. Bradley Manning, Julian Assange (the Wikileaks founder), Wikileaks itself and others who support what Wikileaks is doing condone these war crimes and want the right to publish these documents to the world public. Yet others say (including the American government) that this can lead to bad things in America and around the world to the public safety and that the people listed above are the crooks.

When the issue of privacy is put in a situation like this it gets very contenous. The American government here seems to be like the individual who signs up to something on apple or creates a profile on facebook. They want to front a certain image of themselves, and yet could have a darker side that could be expressed on the internet. The internet is in a sense a stage for war, between the private and the public side of life and that these political notions are not just at the individual level but are at the levels of bigger bodies.

You're my friend, right?

I found myself consumed with questions surrounding what is a friend in the last lecture. Is it because we have never seen a friend physically in 'real life' that they can't be a 'friend'? I admit I have judged friends for having a text 'relationship' when they haven't met the other person. I mean, how can you call someone your boyfriend if you haven't even met them anyway?? O_o It's my belief that although one may share quite a bit of intimate information about them with another via txting or chat etc that the relationship may not be as successful when it comes to real life. A common downfall of these relationships I've found is trust or the lack thereof. But there is also the chemistry, that spark experienced virtually that falls short when it comes to physical companionship. Even when it comes to just plain old friends from school, people find it easier to relate to them online since they know their conversation would be filled with silence if held in person. I know I do.

In being a pessimist of online/txt friendship, I have to err 'give credit where it is due'. Explanation; The friendship and intimacy achieved virtually cannot be deemed any less important and meaningful to people involved. It's just a type of relationship that may not be as successful in the physical world.

Dunbar Numbers and Awkward Moments at Foodtown.

So, the Dunbar Number (generally accepted as about 150) is the number of people a person can know personally at any given time. You contact them at least once or twice a year. You can remember roughly 150 names, faces, and relationships- who knows who, where you know them from, who you know them through, and so forth. Any more than that and your brain started getting too strained to keep up in any cohesive way.

Does this mean that if you have, say, 320 friends on your social network of choice there's roughly 170 people in that group that, if you were to bump into them at the supermarket, you wouldn't quite remember who they were?

You might sort of know you knew them, might recognize them, but awkwardly forget their name. Or maybe you'd remember their name, but get confused and think you know them from lectures when actually they're your cousin's girlfriend.

How does the number change when you apply it to interfaces such as Facebook?

Dunbar himself has recently examined Facebook in terms of his infamous number, to see whether it applies to virtual communities. The study hasn't officially been released yet, but this website claims he found that the number 150 stands even when it comes to online "friends".

Then again, Facebook informs you of a person's name (sometimes including their middle name, if they thought it vital to let everyone know that too), their university, the high school they went to and in what years, their friends, what they Like (Bob Marley quotes, usually) and who they're currently In A Relationship with. There's a photo of the person's face next to their name in your news-feed.

It makes it a lot easier to "remember" or "know" someone when you can stimulate your memory with a quick glance at where you night have met them (best friends for a week in primary school?) and who they're dating. Surely Dunbar's Number goes up a little, what with FB helping you manage your contacts instead of letting your brain do all the work.