According to Prensky, contemporary internet users are classified as either natives or immigrants. Natives embrace new communication mediums with ease, while immigrants struggle to adapt, or are not aware of the potential. Weinberger however believes there is no segregation, but that the web is still a new world to all, and we have no idea what’s out there, or how to find it.

If you are a digital native, you most likely create your own method of doing things, and generally this will always be different to how an immigrant does them, whether it’s communicating, sharing, learning or socialising (Prensky, 2004, p. 2-14).  Through my own experiences I find this theory accurate. Take social networking websites for example. They give their members the opportunity to collect, share, communicate, socialise, game, and more. If we compare the options I have for socialising against what my parents had when they were twenty-two over thirty years ago, the results would speak for themselves. I began using email and instant messaging applications ten years ago, and have since progressed through multiple communication mediums such as mobile phones, peer-to-peer services, social networking sites, and most recently weblogs, described as being “the latest repository under the rubric Web 2.0” (Stefanac, 2007, p. 217). I’m sure that if my parents had known the definition of digital native ten years ago, they would have applied it to me, whereas the current generation of teens may consider me to be an immigrant in comparison to themselves. My parents could not be considered natives, but they have certainly adapted to new communication technologies. For example they have both created social networking accounts for gaming purposes, can text message reasonably well, and utilise email on a daily basis. But it was only once I taught them the benefits of these mediums, and illustrated how to use them that they did so.

However, if we compare a twenty-two year old late eighties child to a ten year old late nineties child, then who becomes the native, and who becomes the immigrant? Are the terms generationally dependent, or is it all about adaptation? If you consider the fact that my seventy-six year old grandmother has a social networking account, perhaps the labels should be applied in terms of personal qualities and convenience, not age. Even my immigrant parents have managed to work out that it is much quicker to search online than to flick through an encyclopaedia. Adaptation is the key.

Weinberger’s theory is not a directly opposing argument, but he is suggesting whether we utilise new communication technologies to our full potential.  We as a society still do not realise the web’s full potential because we have built it for a concept, to develop more concepts (Weinberger, 2002). There is still debate on the impact the internet has socially (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 2002, p. 432). Basically, forget the segragation, because whether you classify yourself as a native, immigrant or other, you still don’t realise the full capabilities. Because we’re so busy building concepts around concepts, we’re never going to appreciate the internet completely. Social interaction may be reflexive, but what about the impact the internet has on a larger scale?

I do see merit in Weinberger’s theory. To make any real progress on understanding the internet we need to address plenty of questions, both economically and globally. Although it is actively adopted by millions we are allowing it to happen without a complete understanding of its use (Slevin, 2000, p. 44). The internet has transformed the process of self-formation, but what has it done to the greater world? It has definitely enabled us to be kept up to date to the minute on world news and distasters. In a matter of seconds you can find out that thousands have died in an earthquake in Asia. But what do you do with the information? How do we use the internet to achieve control over globalizing influences? Could the internet somehow have prevented those people from dying? This is Weinberger’s point. We are not using the internet globally, we are using it domestically, and we still have no idea on how to make a difference with it.

Through my own experiences with new communication technologies I find his theory to be accurate. What do I use the internet for? I use it to socialise and communicate with friends; for my university studies; for online banking;  and for staying up to date with news and events. But globally, what am I contributing? Nothing. The closest I get to utilising the internet on a global scale is checking for news updates, but how often do I look at the “world” section? Rarely, because I don’t force myself to care. I take priority in my country, my personal well-being, and how I will be affected directly by the news of the day. It would be delusional to call this patriotic. All it is is ignorance.

Weinberger’s theory makes the terms of native and immigrant irrelevant. Whether you are young or old, his point is that you still don’t have any real idea of how the internet affects your life. As Slevin states, “social theory has no rationale if it does not somehow generate concepts which can be placed in the service of empirical work” (2000, p. 85). Perhaps integrating the two theories is the key to discovering the internet’s full potential. If we recognize that natives and immigrants do exist, but implore them to treat the internet globally, maybe the potential can be reached.   

In any case, we cannot ignore the internet and other new communication technologies. Slevin stated almost ten years ago that, “while the internet is global in extent, it is by no means a general medium of communication in the way that radio or television already are” (2000, p. 40). A most irrelevant statement now when you consider the statistics. The total number of internet users worldwide by 1999 was estimated to be between 150 and 180 million (Slevin, 2000, p. 40). Compare this with Su Jung Kim’s citation from 2008, and you’ll see some striking changes. As of August 2006 more than 207 million people have access to the internet (Kim, 2008, p.3), and this is just in the United States alone. The latest data suggests that there are currently 1,668,870,408 internet users globally.

The internet is neither utopia nor dystopia (Katz & Rice, 2002), but simply a communication infrastructure (National Academy Press, 1994). Based on my own personal experiences with new communication technologies, I find both Prensky and Weinberger’s theories to be valid. There are certainly segregations between users in terms of natives and immigrants, but I believe this to be based on adaptation of the individual, not on generation, as Prensky may be suggesting. The key to recognising the internet’s full potential is to integrate the two theories. Recognising emerging technologies are essential (Wilhelm, 2004). Whether you are a native or an immigrant, if you ignore the internet, you can be sure that it will be at your peril (Prensky, 2004, p. 14).

REFERENCE LIST

1. Haythornthwaite, C. & Wellman, B. (2002). The Internet in Every Day Life. Victoria: Blackwell Publishing
2. Katz, J. E. & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction. Massachusetts: MIT Press  
3. Kim, S. J. (2008). Internet’s Influence on Traditional Media In the Contemporary Media Environment http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/3/6/4/pages203645/p203645-1.php
4. Prensky, M. (2004). Emerging Online Life Of The Digital Native.  http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf  
5. Realising the information future: the internet and beyond. (1994). Washington DC: National Academy Press. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Wq35jToxJXYC&dq=internet+and+society&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=jPtgUN71cV&sig=Q_Lz6KdOs-5YMU8iw6OjHkk6qVs&hl=en&ei=irfeSoaTB5LUsQP2lKDkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=internet%20and%20society&f=false
6. Slevin, J. (2000). The Internet and Society. Cambridge: Polity Press
7. Stefanac, S. (2007). Dispatches from blogistan – a travel guide for the modern blogger. Berkeley: New Riders.
8. Weinberger, D. (2002). Small Pieces Loosely Joined: a unified theory of the web. Cambridge: Perseus Bookshttp://www.smallpieces.com/content/chapter1.html
9. Wilhelm, A. (2004). Digital nation: toward an inclusive information society. Massachusetts: MIT Presshttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=eWwXUYrIeToC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=digital+nation&source=bl&ots=eo_Kf0s-kY&sig=TRPw7drmafQZPO8M6nR-NG7aeqk&hl=en&ei=TbLeSor-IYvQtAPX4vjaDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false
10. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

So, I suppose I’m a bit wishy washy when it comes to politics. But I’ll do my best.

I’ve signed an e-petition, and one that I do actually feel quite strongly about. I signed the abortion decriminalisation petition. I agree that women need to be careful when it comes to pregnancy, being responsible is of utmost importance, however I also feel it’s your body and your right to do what you will with it. I could never say what I’d do in that situation if it happened to me, who knows, I mightn’t be able to go through with it, but I think women deserve the choice. We’re not just a vessel, just because we have the physical capabilities to bring new life to the planet doesn’t mean we have the mental or emotional ones necessary to do it to the best of our ability.  If you’d like to sign this petition or another one for QLD go here

I have indeed responded to a blog posted on The Australian’s website. A very fitting blog to boot too! Not sure when my comment will be approved though.

I attempted to figure out Barack’s schedule. All I could muster from The Australian was that he was interviewed by John King from CNN in the White House. Just another day for El Presidente.

chosen topic for online essay…

1. Marc Prensky’s “Emerging online life of the digital native” and David Weinberger’s “A New World” (this is chapter 1 from a book called “Small Pieces Loosely Joined” which is in the library as a physical book, it’s available as an ebook in the GU catalogue, and it’s also on the internet for free if you use your google powers!) both present different views of contemporary internet users. In light of your own experiences with new technologies do you think they are accurate portrayals? Discuss why or why not with specific examples.

Resource 1) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf

Young people are digital natives and Marc is arguing that they are inventing new online ways of making each activity happen. Marc believes that the possibilities for what can be done are growing exponentially and are being adapted by more each day. Marc thinks that the net had become an entire strategy for how to live.

Resource 2) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Marc believes there is a singular reason for the incremental changes in students, and that this reason is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century. Marc argues that a “Digital  Natives” brain is physically different due to the digital influence they have had growing up, and if we want them to learn successfully we need to accept that video and computer resources are not the devil.

Resource 3)  http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Marc believes that a brain does physically change based on the stimulation it receives from the outside, especially after the age of 3. The brain is not massively plastic and can be reorganised constantly (neuroplasticity).

Resource 4) http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ma-bQNkffzIC&dq=David+Weinberger&source=an&hl=en&ei=9mK7Su2zJ4a-MJHL0bcO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8

David Weinberger is described as a marketing guru. His book “Small Pieces Loosely Joined” discusses how the Web is altering our bedrock concepts of culture, and thinks we need to begin assessing its true impact on our lives.

Resource 5) http://books.google.com.au/books?id=SUsRr93DRKEC&dq=David+Weinberger&source=an&hl=en&ei=9mK7Su2zJ4a-MJHL0bcO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9

There are principles of digital order that are reshaping business around the globe.

NB : just because I’ve used Google Books above doesn’t mean they’ll be utilised for my essay, this is just my starting point!

Jason’s a bit of a legend I suppose, he’s created all these online games that have recently won him some nice accolades (I can’t for the life of me remember the name of the award…I want to say deadly)? The games are insane, he showed us the example and I must admit that as a game itself it confused me, but the meaning behind it was great, totally love “the space between the couch”.

The main point of Jason’s lecture was that the net as a Utopian society is chaotic. Even though it’s been developed beyond belief over the past 10 – 15 years we still can’t figure it all out.

We learnt about the .com crash with pets.com as an example. Basically shiteloads of dosh got pumped in to the net but after 2000 very few were still doing well, Amazon is one of the few that are (Yahoo was another but it looks like Gatesy is adding another ticket to himself with that one). MySpace is another example of this, majority of us have migrated to Facebook, and now we’re starting to migrate from that to Twitter (notice how MySpace brought in the ability to tag photos once Facebook stole their thunder and now Facebook has the ability to send direct @ comments to people now that Twitter has stolen theirs?). I myself have both a Facebook and a Twitter and I still prefer Facebook. I’m sure one day I’ll get sick of them both. Maybe not though. I just can’t be bothered calling some people and I like being able to post an obnoxious comment instead.

Jason also showed us archive.org, a website where you can check out homepages of other sites from 10 years back. GU looked like  a current web page for QLD RSL’s. Nice.

Serves good and bad I suppose, but is a clean feed really going to stop anything? I don’t think so. Where there’s a will there’s a way and if you censor the internet someone will create something new. Extreme carrier-pidgeons, for example.

I get why they want to do it. But it all boils down to user responsibility. Monitor the user, not the feed.

What place does censorship have in a  democracy?

Depends on your democracy. If you’re a democracy like the USA then you have freedom of speech. If you’re a democracy like AUS then you don’t have freedom of speech. We’re a pretty open minded and diplomatic country but I do find it a bit contradictory that we have censorship. That’s why the internet has boomed – it gives countries like ours an element of that freedom

Distance = space between, remoteness
Participation = taking part
Therefore modernism involved ignorance and post-modernism involves awareness

Design = general form or arrangement, plan, intention
Chance = probability, possibility, unplanned occurance
Therefore modernism involved organisation and post-modernism involves the concept of “fate”

Hierarchy = system of grades, authority
Anarchy = disorder
Therefore modernism involved order by command and post-modernism involves potential chaos

Art object = a beautiful product
Happening = occurring, chancing
This one’s funny, I suppose it’s planned creation versus the concept of fate again, although beautiful products can be created through chance. Bit ambiguous.

Creation = to make
Deconstruction = to destroy
Therefore modernism is creative and post-modernism is destructive

Depth = distance from surface
Surface = limits of a solid
Is this cryptic? Does modernism imply depth and post-modernism involves limitations?

Type = sort, class
Mutant = result from mutation
Again, is it cryptic? Modernism involves class whilst post-modernism involves freaks? Or does this relate back to hierarchy and anarchy?

Genital = reproductive organ
Polymorphous = I see no definition in my dictionary (therefore it doesn’t exist?) however “polyp” means a small growth
Is modernism better endowed than post-modernism?

Paranoia = delusions, abnormal mistrust
Schizophrenia = disconnection between thoughts and feelings
Modernism is kidding itself and post-modernism is removed. This contradicts will the first set of definitions though.

Metaphysics = philosophy that deals with nature of existence
Irony = perversity of fate or circumstance
I think this make a brilliant recipe. Modernism questions truth, post-modernism deals and laughs with circumstance

Romantacism = the adherence to the romantic
Dadaism = no definition therefore it doesn’t exist!!!

Purpose = reason
Play = a gay frolick in the meadow
Modernism involves reason, post-modernism doesn’t care for it

One word certainly stands out from the rest of the lecture content for me, and that’s “cyber-punks”. Think of The Wizard of Oz – is a “good hacker” the Good Witch of the North and is a “cyber-punk” is the Wicked Witch of the West, using their comm tech knowledge for evil purposes? Or are they just “fighting the man”? How can you be a “good hacker”? Shades of grey I suppose.

Cyberpolitics and eDemocracy featured in Week 8 also. eDemocracy is the intervention that the net plays in “real world politics” (are any politics real world? That point’s debatable I think). Democracy itself is debatable, if you’re defining it as “the rule of the many”, but we get the basic gist.  Obviously the majority of Aussies voted in the Labour party but that doesn’t mean the Labor party represents 99% of the political beliefs held by us. In any case I still consider myself a Diplomat/Democrat.  It certainly does surprise me that as few as 5% vote in some elections though. I can understand why some would just genuinely not care but I think if you’re given the option to have a say in who governs your country you should make the most of it, particularly when so many countries are still fixed by way of dictatorship or communism and their people don’t have an option. Even if you vote for the fishing party you’re still making some sort of difference – I don’t care who you vote for as long as you have a reason for it.

I find the second media age theory entirely correct. This is evident just from glancing at Twitter and realising how many pollies are tweeting their actions. K-Rudd’s a sucker for Tweeting, loves his Twitter.

The net does often force people to deal with issues they otherwise may ignore. The simple act of making an online newspaper your homepage can do that. I think it’s a good thing. I’m not going to tell anyone how to live their life but why live under a rock? It means children no longer have to wait until class to be taught lessons by their teachers, or to do something wrong to be taught a lesson by their parents.

Mass media is not an imagined community although I suppose it depends on how philosophical you want to get when discussing it. If you’re engaging yourself with it, but nobody else sees you do it, does the action exist? It’s the tree falling in the forest syndrome – does it make a sound if nobody is around to hear it? I shouldn’t get started on things like this or I’ll be here for hours.

Mass media can certainly be blamed in part for the public opinion, but I don’t believe they’re entirely to blame, you can attribute it to public ignorance as well. If the media communicates that Iran is a bad country because they have political and social problems then the public will believe them pending the evidence provided, but we’re to blame too. Ignorance is not always bliss. Some just don’t have any desire to educate themselves.

It’s one thing for information to be communicated, but what you do with that information is up to you. It’s not a democracy if you don’t participate. Without participation you allow it to be considered the opposite. But how are you supposed to take advantage of freedom of speech if your own constitution doesn’t consider it a basic right? Although I suppose if we did have freedom of speech we’d still have Kyle Sandilands on the airwaves, so maybe there are some positives.

Suffice to say companies like CreativeCommons are making positive changes. Want someone to use your stuff and not get in the dirt for it? Adopt a free license that lets them. I love it. Great way for your stuff to get some fame too, if that’s your desire.

So is a hacker a criminal? I suppose it depends on their intent. If they’re doing it for personal gain, maybe. If they’re doing it for an employer, maybe. The lines are blurred. We all join Facebook for social networking and to show how hot we look after we’ve photoshopped ourselves but we all forget that they have license to our crap too. If you’re communicating messages via the net/web, that’s anybody can see if they choose to (even a private profile doesn’t hide everything), what’s the difference if someone gets paid to sus out some info? You can be considered a hacker if you find some backdoor entry to get the info you seek. So if you download music illegally are you a pirate or a hacker? Pirate sounds cooler.

Don’t think I didn’t notice the reference to Black Assassins in your definition of punk music Stockwell. I’m on to you.

I love the Matrix.

Morpheus: What is real? How do you define real? If you’retalking about your senses, what you feel, taste, smell, or see, thenall you’re talking about are electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Potentially one of my favourite quotes from a film. Again I’d like to refer back to the tree falling in the forest. If I didn’t see it happen does it really exist? Do we really exist? Is my identity something I’ve created for myself or have I let the media tell me who I am?

I’ve just finished writing a comparative analysis on Genesis and Beowulf and I don’t care if I never choose to read the Bible ever again, but I’d like to make a point on the story of Adam and Eve. The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for childhood. Gain knowledge and inevitably mature and innocence will disappear. Lock yourself in a bubble and never interact with anyone or anything and you might be able to keep the innocence, but in turn you are therefore ignorant. Ignorant, or smart? Sometimes I think residing under the rock would be easier.

Utopia means paradise, but paradise in definition depends entirely on your state of mind. It’s subjective.

“Procrasti-Nation” is about just how damn good most of us are at delaying the inevitable, which is in this instance, studying.

I personally feel blessed to be able to make a movie about it, as it is a concept that is dear to my heart.

Once again, I cannot stress enough how mind-blowingly exciting this is.

(Apologies again for not being able to show it here due to blip.tv, you’ll have to make do with the link)

I found this lecture really interesting and it’s convincing me to keep blogs online for my future writing career. I had no idea Creative Commons existed and I’m pretty confident I have every intention of using them in the future. I’m also going to get my friend’s band to sign up for it – they need some exposure.

Creative Commons was started in 2002. It’s a non-profit org dedicated to promoting reasonable copyright, providing free standard licensing tools.

C = Copyright
CC = Creative Commons
PD = Public Domain

Creative Commons can tailor a license to suit YOUR needs (employ me as sales personnel…go on, do it).

Also covered in this week’s lecture was source coding and how programming languages work. Intstructions are written in languages that tell the computer what to do, and are compiled in to something the computer understands.

Software used to always be free. Now, you pay through the roof… if you’re dumb like me. Richard M Stallman started the Free Software Foundation in 1981 to try and keep it going though, bless his soul.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to make another movie…Cheerio

Apologies but blip tv won’t let me embed the code properly so you’ll just have to make do with a link.

Prepare to be dazzled. This is interesting stuff.