Everyday, the human population grows forever closer to computers. Interactivity has increased rapidly, especially since the boom in social networking sites. The way we execute actions and why we execute them is being changed at a rapid pace. A talking dog can now be watched on Youtube by millions in the matter of days because of the collective social actions that we all take together. Whether this is a good thing is unknown, many agree that this is a positive progression while others argue against some aspects.
On sites such as Facebook or Twitter, media is now passed around the world in a matter of seconds, but it is for the social collective to decide whether it has the chance to get widely spread. With buttons such as "like" and the tagging system on twitter e.g "#92Chrisc", we are now able to announce to everyone what we like and can have a say in what becomes popular. The result in the way the media operate has for ever changed the way in which humans interact with technology, in some respects we are manipulating what comes to the forefront of culture and society by using these "like" buttons. This is a great tool for the citizen journalist, who is now able to influence social thinking and to also distribute news articles amongst other things.
Although saying this, there has been some speculation that sometimes the top ten trend has been manipulated as to not show what the company doesn't deem fit as showing. Which in turn shows that possibly, the trending system is not a truly free application which we always have influence over. For example, in the recent months there has been an global occupation in many of the major cities around the world, protesting the grips the banking system has on government and businesses. The new New York occupation like many around the world, has a media group which tweets throughout the day. This has then been re-tweeted globally for more than two months. Many people involved in the occupation believe that the company is suppressing the tag #OccupyWallStreet as it hasn't appeared in the top ten even though it has had a surprising amount of mentions. Full article available here. RT said "In March of 2011, Bloomberg news reported that JPMorgan Chase & Co., arguably the largest corporate bank in the world, “has invested in a fund that has bought about $400 million in Twitter Inc. shares." They also added "In the end, Twitter might be more than happy to help the US government overthrow undesirable regimes in other parts of the world. But when it comes to giving voice to those who have decided to challenge a system of corporate greed and income inequality at home, silence might ultimately figure better into their bottom line". If this is true, the emerging online manipulation echoes tactics used by oppressive regimes in some countries such as China or Egypt. It suggests that the government is using interactivity to manipulate people's thinking processes.
The rise in interactivity has also enabled fans to be closer to there stars like never before. Many "celebrities" and politicians now have profiles on many of the social networking sites, which has created a new link and relationship that was not present before. It is now possible to get your "celebrity gossip" from the horses mouth, cutting out the middle man such as OK magazine, allowing the audience to watch away at a "twitter war" between their favourite celebrities. Thus, creating a hyperbolic use of interactivity.
Politicians are also interacting with the public increasingly by using the Twitter system to voice there opinions and political stance on policy. This is a great advancement for civilians being able to interact with the government personally on some levels. It enables us as a population to get insight into individual political thought processes and opinions. In October MP's ruled that it would be fine for them to use electron devices for the purpose of tweeting whilst in the chamber although, earlier in the year, Parliamentary authorities tried to get the use of the devices band the guardian reports, saying it would disconnect them from the primary object of the chamber.
Overall, it would seem that we are heading towards a road full of interactivity. In a never ending evolving world, we need to weigh up the good and the bad and analyze the outcome and try to see what the future holds for the process. We need to also understand how the true nature of online freedom interacts with online activity , because you may be doing something online "freely" but it might not necessarily be a free choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment