A neo-luddite would probably struggle with quite a few things in Uni. For example, handbooks are posted online rather than handed out, time tables are online, lecturers EMAIL students about lecture cancellations and other VITAL information. On the social side of things (s)he's also going to miss out as most of people events and parties are communicated on Facebook rather than IRL. A lot of discussion about work also taken place on Facebook and MSN. The neo-luddite would find it hard to keep in contact with friends as all that takes place with the use of social networking and mobile telephones and the degree will suffer because of the lack of access to things like blackboard and MChome where essential information is found.
Submission of assessments would pretty much be impossible as they need to be typed and printed and, in some cases on some courses, actually handed in electronically.
So yeah, basically, it couldn't be done. A Neo-luddite would not fare well at a modern day university at all because the courses as well as the social part of uni life heavily rely on digital technologies.
Showing posts with label IRL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IRL. Show all posts
Friday, 20 March 2009
RED ANSWERS - part 1 /// Find out about 'Digital Immigration'.
1) Find out about 'Digital Immigration'.What Is it? Who cares about it? What sort of general attitudes have been based upon it?
The concept of digital immigration basically divides the users of modern day "new media" technologies into two groups:
Digital Natives
A digital native is somebody (fairly young) who has grown up in a world that "relies" on digital new media technologies, they basically "grew up with it". Therefore they have grown up using these technologies which are therefore like second nature to them. Some argue that this affects their way of life quite significantly, claiming that a certain social practises for them mostly occur online, rather than IRL.
Digital Immigrants
A digital immigrant is somebody who didn't grow up in "the digital age" and therefore had to adapt to these changing digital standards of new media.
One of the main points that the concept of Digital Immigration handles with is that, where digital antives can easily adapt to new technologies, multi-task and use them with great easy, digital immigrants are sometimes having difficulties finding their way in this "new world" (hence the use of the word "immigrants"). Also, it highlights communication-problems between the two groups as the digital immigrants have trouble communicating to digital natives who have a "new language" and, to a certaine xtend "a new view on the world around them".
Especially at points where the immigrants mostly communicate TO the natives (like in education) this could cause some serious problems. It is the difficultness by which the two communicate which is the "big" issue about digital immigration as the two demographic age groups (below and over 28 years old) are simply not "compatible" like they used to be.
The concept of digital immigration basically divides the users of modern day "new media" technologies into two groups:
Digital Natives
A digital native is somebody (fairly young) who has grown up in a world that "relies" on digital new media technologies, they basically "grew up with it". Therefore they have grown up using these technologies which are therefore like second nature to them. Some argue that this affects their way of life quite significantly, claiming that a certain social practises for them mostly occur online, rather than IRL.
Digital Immigrants
A digital immigrant is somebody who didn't grow up in "the digital age" and therefore had to adapt to these changing digital standards of new media.
One of the main points that the concept of Digital Immigration handles with is that, where digital antives can easily adapt to new technologies, multi-task and use them with great easy, digital immigrants are sometimes having difficulties finding their way in this "new world" (hence the use of the word "immigrants"). Also, it highlights communication-problems between the two groups as the digital immigrants have trouble communicating to digital natives who have a "new language" and, to a certaine xtend "a new view on the world around them".
Especially at points where the immigrants mostly communicate TO the natives (like in education) this could cause some serious problems. It is the difficultness by which the two communicate which is the "big" issue about digital immigration as the two demographic age groups (below and over 28 years old) are simply not "compatible" like they used to be.
Friday, 6 February 2009
Week 3 | Topic 2 | Question A
Is withholding one’s identity ethically wrong?
I think this depends entirely on the website or other internet-service used. A really basic example can be given by comparing the two most popular social networking websites. Rivals they may be, but the social discourse and expectations of how people represent themselves is totally different. Facebook on the one hand expects users to use their real name, upload ONLY pictures of themselves, and communicate with people in their actual lives/environment, for example by using networks based on employers or educational institution which you can only join if you can proof that you are part of this "group". So Facebook is more a tool to contact people you actually know rather than a place to meet people. Myspace, on the other hand, is more about customising a page very much and creating an online persona that is perhaps only remotely related to you real-life identity. Myspace actually is more about meeting people based on similar interests like music and things like that. For example, my own Myspace page only passingly mentions that my name is Frank (http://www.myspace.com/fbcnl)
Not normally a problem at all, users of the respective websites know what to expect from other users onthere, but it WOULD be (ethically?) wrong to use Facebook like Myspace and think of a vaux identity onthere as people will expect you to be yourself.
More examples would be Role Playing Games and chatboxes. Role playing games (MUD's, MOO's, World of Warcraft and so on) are all about constructing a custom-made identity, and other users knwo this. In chatboxes (still depending on the theme though, but i'm generalising here to make my point) people may expect you to be yourself and if they are, it could be considered wrong if you pretend to be somebody you're not. Especially if you are doing this in order to gain people's trust/information or God knows what else.
I think this depends entirely on the website or other internet-service used. A really basic example can be given by comparing the two most popular social networking websites. Rivals they may be, but the social discourse and expectations of how people represent themselves is totally different. Facebook on the one hand expects users to use their real name, upload ONLY pictures of themselves, and communicate with people in their actual lives/environment, for example by using networks based on employers or educational institution which you can only join if you can proof that you are part of this "group". So Facebook is more a tool to contact people you actually know rather than a place to meet people. Myspace, on the other hand, is more about customising a page very much and creating an online persona that is perhaps only remotely related to you real-life identity. Myspace actually is more about meeting people based on similar interests like music and things like that. For example, my own Myspace page only passingly mentions that my name is Frank (http://www.myspace.com/fbcnl)
Not normally a problem at all, users of the respective websites know what to expect from other users onthere, but it WOULD be (ethically?) wrong to use Facebook like Myspace and think of a vaux identity onthere as people will expect you to be yourself.
More examples would be Role Playing Games and chatboxes. Role playing games (MUD's, MOO's, World of Warcraft and so on) are all about constructing a custom-made identity, and other users knwo this. In chatboxes (still depending on the theme though, but i'm generalising here to make my point) people may expect you to be yourself and if they are, it could be considered wrong if you pretend to be somebody you're not. Especially if you are doing this in order to gain people's trust/information or God knows what else.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Task for week 1: Chatrooms, (instant) messenger services and IRLs (characteristics and use)
Good example of messengers are MSN Messenger, well, everyone still calls it MSN Messenger, but officially Microsoft deemed it a good idea to ditch one of the internet's best-known brands in favour for Windows Live Messenger, for text-messenging and Skype for video-calls. MSN actually can do video-calls just aswel as Skype can, however, Skype has become the norm, probably due to it's ability to actually audio-call traditional phones aswel.
The basic concept of instant messenging is quite simple. A (fairly small) piece of software tells you which of the people you have added to the application's "friend-list" are online and whent heya re you can open a chat-window in which you can instantly send eachother and an unlimited amount of short terxt messages thus enabling an actual conversation, be it in text-form. Users can also send each other files and pictures. Users who have a webcam and/or microphone installed on their computer can use these to have actual audio and/or video conversations with each other.
Chatrooms are similar in the sense that messages are sent instantly, however they are mostly divided by region or a specific interest or subject and a meeting place to talk to a larger group of people you may not even know.
IRL's are basically a different term for web-forums, where subjects can be discussed in a post-after-post manner rather than in real-time.
I personally mostly use MSN Messenger as it has more or less become the standard form of instant messenging. It's a good way to keep up with other people's going on's or simply to pass the time. However, occasionally it's a good way to communicate actual constructive information when doing university group work and an actual physical meeting isn't possible for whatever reason.
The basic concept of instant messenging is quite simple. A (fairly small) piece of software tells you which of the people you have added to the application's "friend-list" are online and whent heya re you can open a chat-window in which you can instantly send eachother and an unlimited amount of short terxt messages thus enabling an actual conversation, be it in text-form. Users can also send each other files and pictures. Users who have a webcam and/or microphone installed on their computer can use these to have actual audio and/or video conversations with each other.
Chatrooms are similar in the sense that messages are sent instantly, however they are mostly divided by region or a specific interest or subject and a meeting place to talk to a larger group of people you may not even know.
IRL's are basically a different term for web-forums, where subjects can be discussed in a post-after-post manner rather than in real-time.
I personally mostly use MSN Messenger as it has more or less become the standard form of instant messenging. It's a good way to keep up with other people's going on's or simply to pass the time. However, occasionally it's a good way to communicate actual constructive information when doing university group work and an actual physical meeting isn't possible for whatever reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
