Digital Gatekeeping

In Watkins’ article “Digital Gates: How Race and Class Distinctions Are Shaping the Digital World” the author displays evidence that illuminates how class and cultural divisions materialize in the realm of social media. Truth be told, while Watkins does have a plenty of work to back up his assertions, I was sold on the concept before the data was ever shown. While my personal experience may be less scientifically reputable it nonetheless offers a subjective window into how the scenario developed in my school and social circle.

Though I was still in high school when Facebook opened itself up to all users with an email address, the networking site still held a more prestigious allure to it than Myspace, more specifically because of who was using it: the upperclassmen. Where on Myspace I stayed relatively contained within the friend circles I had created in the physical world, Facebook was more of a dossier of connections. The inherent association of college and achievement turned it into a secret club of sorts. Few from my grade had one yet, but all of the seniors did, and adding them gave one an in for real life social interaction. 

Of course this did not last long. Once everyone had a Facebook it lost its allure considerably, to the point where there is even a backlash of people removing themselves from it. While users leave for various reasons, I think modern flights to and from these communities are more indicative of two human characteristics interacting: the desire for community in combat with the fear of the other.

At Facebook’s inception it was sold on its exclusivity, a community of people with likeminded goals and attitudes that offered a digital “gate” that kept out undesirable persons. In this way the people using Facebook fall into the danger of self reinforced ideals of normality. When a large percentage of a population is excluded, one can very easily subscribe to what they consider “true” ideals without ever seeing the converse opinion. This holds true even in anonymous communities, where even though a centralized user image is lacking certain groups are still ostracized and demeaned for straying from a broad and widely accepted social paradigm. 

However to say this is Facebook’s fault is to be technologically deterministic. It might be more accurate to say that if a user has this tendency to defend their fragile perceptions by easily blocking out the noise of others, they will more than likely do it. What then does that say about the future of thought and argument in the digital age? One can not always avoid the confrontation of ideas in the physical world. Now, you can silence the speaker at even the hint of an upsetting opinion. 

But what do you think? Are exclusive digital communities ultimately reinforcing long held beliefs at the expense of creating understanding among disparate parties? Is the flight to and from sites just another means of individualizing one’s self?  

A New Age in Privacy Control

The formative years spent in high school and college is a collage of ideologies and personalities and faces. Kids meet in the cafeteria and bars, develop relationships, create dialog, and in that time develop their own personalities. The basis for social media sites like Facebook and Twitter (of interaction, usually age-appropriate) has been the structure of the American grade school lifestyle for generations. Social media has given these human interactions a webpage, this much is obvious. More telling is the onscreen presentation of these ties and interactions building and falling apart in real time.

Mary Madden’s research for Pew Internet Project observes different age groups in managing the privacy settings on social media sites. Young people made up most of the users on social media websites, and were also more likely to delete content they posted or untag themselves from pictures. All users were more likely to restrict access to their profiles (58%), with women more likely than men to do so (67% vs. 48%).

Why are young people more prone to using social media, and why are they deleting their stuff more than other age groups? There are a myriad of reasons, but the simplest is: they were born unto cyberspace. Facebook is about to turn ten, and a bunch of fresh faces came of age in the social media hailstorm that followed. Where once people could learn basic social behaviors on the playground, which includes saying the wrong thing in front of the wrong group of people, they now must contend with the “permanent” marks left by virtual text. Word of mouth becomes Shared posts. 

Choice words that could once float off into the linoleum halls on a huff of teen angst, perhaps jotted into the margins of binders the world over, could now sit and stew in the online, public/private forums that people map out for themselves. Staring at a screen and feeling something, reacting to it alone (no matter how many people you’re contacting at once), is much different than the face-to-face interactions that create precedent for one’s actions and others’ reactions. Their personalities and ideologies shift from year to year, so these “profiles” become daily relics of a past that is updated by the minute, but can be commented on well into the future.

More pertinent questions to the findings however, and one I fear I am too removed from to accurately comment on, are: why are women more likely than men to shield their profiles? Is there a through line between privacy settings and the disparity in gender-specific harassment? Is it just harassment from men, or perhaps targeted bullying from other girls? Does the content posted by women negatively affect them more in the future in regards to seeking employment than when compared to men?

Also: why would media users with the highest levels of education report the most difficulty in managing the privacy controls on their profiles? Is this a matter of “time spent on _____” in comparison to those NOT being schooled, and perhaps have more time for “social media distractions”? Could it be that more education raises more concerns, and so controlling privacy becomes a concern to the educated folk who are confused as to why the privacy controls can seem underdeveloped?

Teens "Privacy" Online

Privacy. Americans want it. Teens crave it. And someone is always infringing on their rights to it.

Susan Barnes’ article, “ A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States” touches on the problems surrounding teens involvement with social networking sites and their disregard for keeping personal information private. She found that “students wanted to keep information private, but did not seem to realize Facebook is a public space.”  These social networking sites are a part of teens everyday life; a live diary for them to socialize and express themselves in. While reading this article I couldn’t help but remember how important it was for me at 15 that my Myspace page reflected “who I was” by adding my favorite songs and picking a background that was totally awesome. To me, Myspace was a place to post pictures, show my top friends, write song lyrics and talk to boys.


So with those posted, intimate and personal details of my life at 15, came the entitlement of privacy I felt I deserved, not to my friends on Myspace, but to my parents. In reality how private are teens Facebook and Myspace pages? Teens parents had to deal with their parents snooping through written diaries and journals, so does that mean it’s only fair they get to do the same with their kids online journals? Teens know they have to be careful about what they post because parents, schools, universities, and future employers are looking at their pages and deciding their future, without ever really giving them consent to do so. “A social exchange between friends has now become a way for universities to monitor student behavior.”

So with this “live diary” are teens giving too much personal information out, and endangering themselves? The topic of online predators comes up when discussing this for obvious reasons. But, like Barnes, I agree that the protection of children from online predators is only one aspect of the “privacy paradox”. The idea that parents need to be educated and in turn educate their kids about online privacy makes the most sense. I know from my own experience, posting my address to Myspace never happened because of the extensive knowledge of online predators I attained from my parents and school. I’m curious if my peers feel the same way, because even at 15, I knew better than to post my phone number or address online.

 Is Susan Barnes article, written in 2006, already dated in comparison to todays internet privacy standards? According to this article, teens are more concerned about their privacy than adults might think. A Pew Research Center study of 800 teens found that about half turned off location and tracking features in certain apps on their phones, and avoided downloading an app at all if they felt it requested too much information or data. Teens today have grown up with technology and understand, unlike Barnes’ teens, that if it is online, it is in a “public space” where privacy is a loose term.

A Privacy Paradox

How much privacy do you think you have on the Internet?  A lot? A little? None at all?

In the article "A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States," Susan B. Barnes discusses how little privacy we actually have as social media users, especially when it comes to teenagers. Barnes talks about how younger generations are "pouring their minds, if not their hearts into cyberspace." Teenagers (and even some college students I happen to know) tend to use social networking sites as an outlet to clear their heads and stow their thoughts ...otherwise known as a modern, cyber diary.

Sites like Xanga, Myspace, Facebook and LinkedIn encourage people to share their personal information to connect with friends and co-workers, but the user is often fooled that their privacy is safer than it really is. I feel like most users (mainly older) know that their privacy in not protected - even with profiles being set to "private", however other users are unaware that revealing too much private information puts them in jeopardy and can lead to dangerous consequences. Online predators can collect online information, but they are not the only concern: marketers, government agencies and even school officials can access this data as well.

In a post 9/11 world, the United States government utilizes computer technology to exert some type of control over its citizens rather than protect their privacy. This brings up the question: Is this a privacy breach or public safety? In a recent NBC News article, a Southern California school district began monitoring teens' Facebook posts in efforts to prevent cyberbullying. When people apply for new jobs, companies also tend to check out the candidate's social media to ensure there is nothing inappropriate.

Recently a lot of citizens have been outraged at the NSA for essentially "spying" on us. Many people think this is an extraordinary breach of privacy, while others contradict this by claiming it is for national security. What constitutes how far is too far when it concerns the government and our personal information?

One very important issue that Internet and social media users need to remember is that social networking sites are cumulative. Replacing old information with new material does not delete the old info, it is archived somewhere in cyberspace. Even this blog will be archived for years to come!

That being said, whatever private information you put about yourself on the world wide web can be accessed for years and years. How much information about yourself do you broadcast on the web? How much is too much information? Where do you draw the line?

100 Ideas and Remixing

Gasser and Ernst consider the remix culture as a potential viable form of realty for the entertainment industry. The boom, they argue, would include “us,” the users/creators to which digital content is being created and fed, because this model of creation and distribution would be encouraged, and possibly a source of revenue for the parties involved. The underlying issue is that this new creative market, from its content to its distribution, is still beholden to antiquated laws and practices. As our technology flourishes, so too do the creative minds that create for entertainment and edification; although mass media is many generations old, the current model is arguably still younger than a decade.

The best point of the article is its last: “the full exploitation of the new opportunities presented by the Internet requires an effort by all players, last but not least by us, the users/creators of digital content.” As our media is consolidated and the niche markets grow ever larger, it becomes apparent that big industries and mass media are slow to provide to individual desires, which is often why artists turn to creating their own work, and why users search out that work and distribute it. It’s not only a matter of respect for a fellow creative type trying in the world: they have a better understanding of their demographic, and what that demographic understands in their influences.

Consider DJ/producer Flying Lotus, who created new music and curated some of his favorite artists for an in-game radio station for Grand Theft Auto V, on why he chose certain songs for the game’s caricatured California cities: “I would drive around and listen to OutKast and Aphex Twin in L.A., and I have my own experiences in the areas that they recreate in the game. I have that shit. I know what it's like listening to Aphex Twin driving down the beach. I get it, and it's special to think that someone else might think that, too. I made this shit for those people.”1 The progress here is that GTA V is a “big industry” text. But video games over the decades have diverged often with the music and film industries on views towards participatory culture. That artists like Flying Lotus can have creative freedom on this level, and to bring his own influences and ideas to the project regardless of the narrative or actual production of the video game, suggests a model for integration into participatory culture that other forms of media might look to for guidance.

Although I argued earlier in this post that the current model might be considered younger than a decade, Gasser and Ernst bring up a pertinent example regarding the 1990 N.W.A. song “100 Miles and Runnin’”. Here, a sample is used from a Funkadelic song and the new song is played in the soundtrack of a film. The copyright holders for the track “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” came at N.W.A. and won. A music activist group Downhillbattle launched a contest to show how a simple guitar riff can be shifted to create an endless amount of new meanings. The point stressed here is, if the original source is cited and attributed to the creation of a new meaning, the new work should be allowed to say its piece and be judged on the merits of its aesthetic and purpose. It should not be remembered solely for the act of “re-appropriation,” unless it is important in starting dialog on why this service toward creation is important in our current generation.

¹http://pitchfork.com/features/update/9220-flying-lotus/

p.s. remix culture is some great music, y'all

Married to the Printing Press

Regulatory structures must evolve in tandem with their given arena to minimize conflict. An administration that increases regulation to counteract the changes in its industry will struggle until it cedes to change as well. That the current landscape of Copyright Law and Fair Use is a battlefield of money grabbing and legal squabbles is no surprise. Modern copyright law takes no account of participatory culture, settling for broad or reactionary laws that stifle creativity.

This is not to say that the intention of copyright is entirely negligible; when one’s income depends on monetizing their art, securing it is essential. Derivative works laws insure that reproduction will result in authorial attribution and financial compensation. Yet the associated issue of Fair Use is an increasingly vague arena of what constitutes original content. Something like Doggie Woggiez Poochie Woochiez that constructs an entire narrative out of VHS ripped dog commercials and TV shows would most likely be considered a transformative work by most that see it. Yet its appropriation of clearly copyrighted material would prove negligible should a court determine it “contributes nothing additional” or “undermines the market of the original work”. Thankfully for the project’s producers’ Everything is Terrible, their niche market as well as a comparably meager possibility for financial gain on the part of the companies ensures they can continue to profit from the film.  Ten seconds of a Wishbone episode is nothing in comparison to the potential earnings from a “Grey Album” lawsuit.

 

With big money at stake, the companies’ only squeeze harder as the consumers-turned-producers continue to obtain and utilize works in creative ways. Consider it the natural side effect of exponential growth in a short frame of time. Gone is the era of gradual content dissemination; consumers can receive content and re-appropriate it with near simultaneity. Copyright laws founded in already outdated modes of acquisition can’t properly contend with the freedom of modern media. As Paul Goldstein observes “copyright doctrine today remains wedded to the economics of the printing press.” 

Commercial image and content integration is the next step in creative re-interpretation.  George Lucas might fight against fan-fiction, but there’d be no Star Wars without The Hidden Fortress. Entities such as Disney integrate themselves into the mass consciousness, yet their creators subvert laws in order to retain financial control. Disney World and Mickey Mouse are iconic institutions with far-reaching cultural relevance, yet the public at large is denied their use for personal expression. People will still create with the content anyway. As technology progresses, increased consumer participation with the media is guaranteed. How lawmakers will ultimately address this inevitability is still uncertain.

If participatory culture and copyright laws cannot coexist effectively in their present form, what specifically can be done? Do you think companies will be keen to cede ground in the hopes of securing some other form of monetization on their works? Or do you disagree and think tougher regulation is the answer?

should we share?

This weeks reading “Remix: How Creativity Is Being Strangled by the Law” brings up the similarities between remix culture and pirating. The lines between these activities are, as described in the chapter, a legal mess. This chapter proposes that information be of free use if it is for good or creative purposes. But It seems to be much easier said than legally enforced. I’ll admit that I don’t have a sure fire theory to solve these disputes, nor can I easily define what we should and shouldn't share, but I think it boils down to a attitude of respect in a community of creators.

 In my personal experience the vastness of the internet and digital sharing allows me to access so much information without much concern as to if the way I am using this information is legal or not, and I don’t really see that changing. I would not go as far to say that I am comfortable debating media law, but because I am very much a part of remix culture, a frequent user of digital sharing technology, and because I both create my own content and work with previously existing information it is important to me that I am able to define what I think appropriate and fair uses of this information are to me as an individual.

Ideally I would like to use any bit of information as it suits me may it be photographs, music, or video. Of course this is unreasonable, but I wouldn’t say it is completely unreasonable, so where do i draw the line? I think the line is drawn when someone else is profiting from your intellectual material. In the simplest terms it is both unreasonable and illegal for me to use a song someone published in my video, or a photograph I found online in my magazine and not at least offer them part of what I receive in exchange for my work.

This article references several cases in which artists were sued for repurposing the art of others, the cases and settlements vary, but it begs the question, what is fair and what is theft? When I look at Koons sculpture or Prince’s reappropriations I feel like these artists are remixing previous ideas and but the original texts is still obvious and important in the meaning of the reappropriated text, but could these artists have made the same effect without the originals? I think the answer varies per case, and the question is one that is nearly impossible to answer.

I think the true answer to who gets to remix what is that artists need to respect each other and fairly cite and compensate their collaborators. Realistically that isn’t something that anyone can assure but it is something I try to abide by.

So I wonder, to what levels are my peers willing to share their content with others? Where do you draw these lines? When is it necessary to use existing information and when is it not?