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.
Showing posts with label MOO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MOO. Show all posts
Friday, 6 February 2009
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Week 2: Topic 1
1> Upgrade culture
The "money making" part of the whole software-upgrading thing, I would think, is quite often an important factor in a company's decision to release a new version of their succesful packages. After all, by the time everybody's got the previous version of the software no more money can be made from sales unless a new product or a new version of a product is launched.
However, I wouldn't say it's the only reason for these constant updates. Technological developments within the computer industry follow eachother up very very rapidly indeed and consumers DO want to make use of these new technologies. After all, what's the point of these technological advantages if there is no software available enabling people to make use of them. This basic concept of new version being released has, to many consumers, been considered a "given", even so much that people now even upgrade their hradware because their old PC/PDA/netbook/whatever couldn't cope with the latest version of the machine's operating system. This could well be because companies put a lot of effort into promoting the new software as a revolutionary new step. But really, how exciting amnd different can the new Windows or Office be? Still the whole upgrade-concept can't JUST be blamed on commerce I think, even freeware like Firefox, which is free to download, gets updated regularly to sufficiently please the consumers' needs.
2> The 'Newness' of new media
The term 'New Media' is ofcourse a bit vague as any form of media would be "new" by the time it was/is introduced. But I guess we'll just have to think of the term 'New Media' as one of those terms that are just called that, even if it technically might not be entirely sound.
I guess the statement that "nothing has changed" isn't entirely true. I would agree that some concepts from older media forms can be found in new media forms but what I feel make new media different are the way they allow instant feedback, quicker selection of what you want to access and, what basically includes the other two points, it's great emphasis on interactivity. Also New Media forms can be yupdated all the time. A newspaper's released once a day, buy it at night and it'll be the same as in the morning, whatever else has happened that day. (Remember when the papers were still baning on about the 2012 olympics while earlier that day the same city was the target of terrorist bombings? Ouch, bit of a painful example that was, but I guess it helps me make my point.).
3> Progress
I would say that yes, it is. The number of services available on any of the new media platforms increases all the time and even old media forms have made their way onto new platforms. Like E-books and television on your mobile.
It has increased but also changed the commercial world significantly. Just think about how big a business Amazon has become completely based on an online service and how both legal and illegal downloading have spawned platforms like iTunes while conventional record stores like HMV and especially Zavvi are struggling to make sales.
Politically it has made it very easy for parties to get their message across to many people as they can elaborate on their agenda's a lot more online than they can in, say a flyer or political party broadcast on television.
And, let's face, it's probably only a matter of time until we can vote online. Maybe then people can actually be bothered to vote then as it's much less of an effort.
4> Analogue & Digital media, the differences
The break is there, but not THAT clear cut. Yes, digital ENABLES things like instant-delivery and interactivity, but doesn't always do so. Digital television does enable for interactive features (PRESS THE RED BUTTON NOW!!!!! NOT IN A MINUTE!! NOW!!!) but the actual broadcast itself is still a one-way communication, so, improved picture and sound aside... it's not really that different a broadcast. the same goes for DAB Digital radio broadcasting, there is more choice, the sound is better, but it's still just radio. I'm not even quite sure wether or not DAB can even be classified as New Media or not. Is a DVD digital? It's full of one's and zero's and the first D stand for Digital but it's still a physical thing that really doesn't do that much different from an old VHS tape, it just plays things. The pretty menu's aren't THAT much of a breakthough, really.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that digital and analogue do not necessarily represent new and old media repectivly. CD's are digital, but were available WAY before there was such a thing called "New Media". All we can safely say is that there IS old media out there that is digital, but NO new media that is analogue, simply because new media is based on digital technology.
A lot of new media are inspired on old media forms in form though, we still start an e-mail the way we used to start a letteror memo and some websites do look a lot like magazines or newspapers.
5> Digitally and code
The end result of the whole procedure might not be so different, after all, an essay is an essay. But the whole process of getting there would be very very very different, there would be even more planning and more drafts until there's a final piece of work that is completely error free and that you are completely satisfied with. A time consuming process it might be but it WOULD call for more and better planning of what you want to say simply because you can't just bang something in later. And there is no way of doing it at the last minute as sometimes happens nowadays. It'd take longer, but it would be a good way to force students to get their act together.
6> Immersive interactivity
I suppose Lunenfield's concept applies to things like MOO's and MUD's, but even more to online games like World of Warcraft, or any other type of realistic online activity or agem that allows you to adapt a different persona in order to "immerse" into a differtent virtual/imaginary world through new media technology.
7> Non-linear
I think I can see what he means there. Whereas traditional media, like books for example, need to build up a story or article and slowly engage and capture the reader in order to keep his/her attention, a non-linear text doesn't need to do that. The web is a GREAT example of this, if you lose interest in something you just click on something else, and that way you are enabled to look for EXACTLY what you want to find out/know. Reading the web is very very selective and therefore pages tend to go for the bare essence of the message.
8> New voices
This enables texts to be REALLY REALLY specific as the web is big enough for everything. A text doesn't need to address a big audience in order to be out there (as it doesnt need to be printed and thus there aren't commercial reasons for wanting a big audience) and can there fore have an audience as specific, or niche, as they want to. And because anyone can publich on the web, and anyone can find this stuff, views and opinions that were normally not mainstream enough to make it to conventional media forms can be expressed, as alternative, controversial or unusual as they might be. These can be political, but also be just about a very specific sub culture. About anything, really.
9> Ideal interactivity
Oooh, ideal is a bit of a dangerous concept I suppose. Especially as it's down to people's personal tastes, but still. Even things like Facebook and Myspace that allow people to interact in a wide range of different ways: messages, private messages, games, pictures, video, instant messages, chat... there is still a third party involved. Facebook has grown into a big corporation and Myspace is owned by Murdoch's News Corporation. I guess a bit of censorship isn't too bad though, as some stuff out there is just unsuitable or distasteful, but then again, isn't that what freedom of speach, and freedom within interactivity is all about? But on the other hand its bigger platforms like Myspace that gives people the attributes to communicate in such a broad fashion, but then isntantly comes with a set of ideals and ideas of what is appropiate. So, bit of a dillema there.
The "money making" part of the whole software-upgrading thing, I would think, is quite often an important factor in a company's decision to release a new version of their succesful packages. After all, by the time everybody's got the previous version of the software no more money can be made from sales unless a new product or a new version of a product is launched.
However, I wouldn't say it's the only reason for these constant updates. Technological developments within the computer industry follow eachother up very very rapidly indeed and consumers DO want to make use of these new technologies. After all, what's the point of these technological advantages if there is no software available enabling people to make use of them. This basic concept of new version being released has, to many consumers, been considered a "given", even so much that people now even upgrade their hradware because their old PC/PDA/netbook/whatever couldn't cope with the latest version of the machine's operating system. This could well be because companies put a lot of effort into promoting the new software as a revolutionary new step. But really, how exciting amnd different can the new Windows or Office be? Still the whole upgrade-concept can't JUST be blamed on commerce I think, even freeware like Firefox, which is free to download, gets updated regularly to sufficiently please the consumers' needs.
2> The 'Newness' of new media
The term 'New Media' is ofcourse a bit vague as any form of media would be "new" by the time it was/is introduced. But I guess we'll just have to think of the term 'New Media' as one of those terms that are just called that, even if it technically might not be entirely sound.
I guess the statement that "nothing has changed" isn't entirely true. I would agree that some concepts from older media forms can be found in new media forms but what I feel make new media different are the way they allow instant feedback, quicker selection of what you want to access and, what basically includes the other two points, it's great emphasis on interactivity. Also New Media forms can be yupdated all the time. A newspaper's released once a day, buy it at night and it'll be the same as in the morning, whatever else has happened that day. (Remember when the papers were still baning on about the 2012 olympics while earlier that day the same city was the target of terrorist bombings? Ouch, bit of a painful example that was, but I guess it helps me make my point.).
3> Progress
I would say that yes, it is. The number of services available on any of the new media platforms increases all the time and even old media forms have made their way onto new platforms. Like E-books and television on your mobile.
It has increased but also changed the commercial world significantly. Just think about how big a business Amazon has become completely based on an online service and how both legal and illegal downloading have spawned platforms like iTunes while conventional record stores like HMV and especially Zavvi are struggling to make sales.
Politically it has made it very easy for parties to get their message across to many people as they can elaborate on their agenda's a lot more online than they can in, say a flyer or political party broadcast on television.
And, let's face, it's probably only a matter of time until we can vote online. Maybe then people can actually be bothered to vote then as it's much less of an effort.
4> Analogue & Digital media, the differences
The break is there, but not THAT clear cut. Yes, digital ENABLES things like instant-delivery and interactivity, but doesn't always do so. Digital television does enable for interactive features (PRESS THE RED BUTTON NOW!!!!! NOT IN A MINUTE!! NOW!!!) but the actual broadcast itself is still a one-way communication, so, improved picture and sound aside... it's not really that different a broadcast. the same goes for DAB Digital radio broadcasting, there is more choice, the sound is better, but it's still just radio. I'm not even quite sure wether or not DAB can even be classified as New Media or not. Is a DVD digital? It's full of one's and zero's and the first D stand for Digital but it's still a physical thing that really doesn't do that much different from an old VHS tape, it just plays things. The pretty menu's aren't THAT much of a breakthough, really.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that digital and analogue do not necessarily represent new and old media repectivly. CD's are digital, but were available WAY before there was such a thing called "New Media". All we can safely say is that there IS old media out there that is digital, but NO new media that is analogue, simply because new media is based on digital technology.
A lot of new media are inspired on old media forms in form though, we still start an e-mail the way we used to start a letteror memo and some websites do look a lot like magazines or newspapers.
5> Digitally and code
The end result of the whole procedure might not be so different, after all, an essay is an essay. But the whole process of getting there would be very very very different, there would be even more planning and more drafts until there's a final piece of work that is completely error free and that you are completely satisfied with. A time consuming process it might be but it WOULD call for more and better planning of what you want to say simply because you can't just bang something in later. And there is no way of doing it at the last minute as sometimes happens nowadays. It'd take longer, but it would be a good way to force students to get their act together.
6> Immersive interactivity
I suppose Lunenfield's concept applies to things like MOO's and MUD's, but even more to online games like World of Warcraft, or any other type of realistic online activity or agem that allows you to adapt a different persona in order to "immerse" into a differtent virtual/imaginary world through new media technology.
7> Non-linear
I think I can see what he means there. Whereas traditional media, like books for example, need to build up a story or article and slowly engage and capture the reader in order to keep his/her attention, a non-linear text doesn't need to do that. The web is a GREAT example of this, if you lose interest in something you just click on something else, and that way you are enabled to look for EXACTLY what you want to find out/know. Reading the web is very very selective and therefore pages tend to go for the bare essence of the message.
8> New voices
This enables texts to be REALLY REALLY specific as the web is big enough for everything. A text doesn't need to address a big audience in order to be out there (as it doesnt need to be printed and thus there aren't commercial reasons for wanting a big audience) and can there fore have an audience as specific, or niche, as they want to. And because anyone can publich on the web, and anyone can find this stuff, views and opinions that were normally not mainstream enough to make it to conventional media forms can be expressed, as alternative, controversial or unusual as they might be. These can be political, but also be just about a very specific sub culture. About anything, really.
9> Ideal interactivity
Oooh, ideal is a bit of a dangerous concept I suppose. Especially as it's down to people's personal tastes, but still. Even things like Facebook and Myspace that allow people to interact in a wide range of different ways: messages, private messages, games, pictures, video, instant messages, chat... there is still a third party involved. Facebook has grown into a big corporation and Myspace is owned by Murdoch's News Corporation. I guess a bit of censorship isn't too bad though, as some stuff out there is just unsuitable or distasteful, but then again, isn't that what freedom of speach, and freedom within interactivity is all about? But on the other hand its bigger platforms like Myspace that gives people the attributes to communicate in such a broad fashion, but then isntantly comes with a set of ideals and ideas of what is appropiate. So, bit of a dillema there.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Task for week 1: MUD's and MOO's (characteristics and use)
A MUD is a Multi-user Dungeon. Since that might not quite clear things up , let's explain:
An imaginary world described by text only, where users can not only chat but use special, universally agreed upon commands to play games with each other.
A MOO is pretty much the same thing but in a MOO, as opposed to a Mud, users can perform programming-codes to alter things.
Both these things allow people worldwide to casually communicate and play together by setting up their own online imaginary persona.
It is basically a very basic form of things like World of Warcraft and similar games where users do pretty much the same thing but can make use of a virtual world in which they can visually customise their character. ( http://www.worldofwarcraft.com )
A nice way to pass the time for some but not useful for actual communiations when there are other, much more to-the-point ways of communication available for formal and contructive communications.
My personal experiences with any of these things? None, so far. But it could be an interesting thing to try in the next few weeks to see what it's like and perhaps post something on the blog about.
An imaginary world described by text only, where users can not only chat but use special, universally agreed upon commands to play games with each other.
A MOO is pretty much the same thing but in a MOO, as opposed to a Mud, users can perform programming-codes to alter things.
Both these things allow people worldwide to casually communicate and play together by setting up their own online imaginary persona.
It is basically a very basic form of things like World of Warcraft and similar games where users do pretty much the same thing but can make use of a virtual world in which they can visually customise their character. ( http://www.worldofwarcraft.com )
A nice way to pass the time for some but not useful for actual communiations when there are other, much more to-the-point ways of communication available for formal and contructive communications.
My personal experiences with any of these things? None, so far. But it could be an interesting thing to try in the next few weeks to see what it's like and perhaps post something on the blog about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
