Whats the meaning behind trolls and the lulz?

“To admit that your are trolling shows that you hold a target – forum, a discussion or a user – in far lower esteem than the target holds itself”, revealing an obvious conflict in values (Wilson, Fuller & McCrea 2013).

A troll looks to “repel incomers, to deter the masses, or at least introduce a tiny break-flow into the circuit of discourse”. While Wilson, Fuller & McCrea (2013), may say that the troll occasionally seeks to disrupt the nodes of power, I would argue that at all times trolls do so, in order to maintain the belief they uphold in that the internet is a space where manners and the norms are indefinitely suspended. Trolling; what is essentially defined as to be cunning, deceitful, provocative or mischievous – is the way in which trolls stand up against the hegemonic values of a corporatized internet (Wilson, Fuller & McCrea 2013).

From the trolls comes the lulz – that’s right LULZ not LOL (as most of us type in our texts or comments on a daily basis). As a consequence of everything I have explained above comes the concept of the lulz and furthermore to notion – ‘to do it for the lulz’. So what’s the lulz you may ask? It is an essentially a corruption of LOL. While still signifying laughter at someone else’s expense, the lulz however are much darker – prone to a prank culture tied up in disturbing or hateful speech and even more so entangled with mystery (Coleman 2014). In understanding the lulz, Coleman (2014) puts it that the lulz is a “form of cultural differentiation and a tool or weapon used to attack, humiliate, and defame the unwitting normal LOLers – often without them even realizing that an entire culture is aligned against them”.

Take one look at the forums of 4chan or Reddit, and you will come to understand the meaning of the lulz. I’m sure we have all seen many forms of online pranks such as memes and GIFs, created by the online community and it is these which signify a part of the lulz. The lulz is an example of these new participatory cultures in which the internet has influenced. To do something for the lulz is essentially trolling. Milner (2013) states that “trolling performs the work of both ‘cultural critic’ and ‘cultural syphon’, using humour and antagonism to rile angry responses and shift the content and tone of the conversation” – hence highlighting the logic of the lulz. Playing off what are the current debates or issues are in the world today the lulz is way to make fun of, stir or create havoc for our society. Anyone can troll and anyone can participate in the lulz. There is no exclusion in this culture.

References

Coleman, G 2014, ‘On Trolls, Tricksters and the Lulz’, in Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The many faces of Anonymous, Verso, London, New York

Fuller, G, McCrea, C & Wilson, J 2013, ‘Trolls and The Negative Space of the Internet’, The Fibreculture Journal, vol.22, pp.1-318.

Milner, R L 2013, ‘Hacking the Social: Internet Memes, Identity Antagonism and the Logic of Lulz’, The Fibreculture Journal: trolls and the negative space of the internet, vol.22, pp.62-92

The Internet of Things: real or just hype?

The ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT) now this is definitely one broad topic that has me pondering where do I focus my discussion on for this blog post. I’ve heard so much about this concept of the IoT over the duration of my Digital Media degree and I have to admit the thought of the future of connectivity is a little bit frightening. I feel like now already we seem to be so connected to a host of devices and then lost when we’re not connected. So as I begin to write the post, after hearing about this topic for some time now it’s time for me to ask some questions – is it real or is it just all hype?.

“Until recently to be on the internet implied attending to a very specific and carefully constructed setting which provided the interface to the information network – a computer terminal connected to the wider infrastructure through a simple cable, or at most through the radio spectrum. Today, the carefully constructed space of the interface terminal has been made mobile and immutable enough, so that it can be carried by one’s body at all times – usually in the form of a smartphone” (Mitew 2014).

“The IoT stands for the connection of usually trivial material objects to the internet – ranging from tooth brushes, to shoes or umbrellas” (Mitew 2014). Furthermore the concept of the IoT according to Jankowski (2014) “emerging as the third wave in the development of the internet”. This third wave has meant that by 2020, we may have the numbers of around 28 billion devices connected to the internet (Jankowski 2014). These 28 billion devices will include such things as wearable devices such as smartwatches (eg. Apple Watch or the Fitbit), to automobiles, appliances and industrial equipment (Jankowski 2014). The list of devices is somewhat unthinkable in comparison to what we have today and it seems like that any new innovative product we may see in the future becomes a part of the IoT.

Jankowski (2014) classifies 5 key verticals where the IoT will be tested first and ultimately decide its value. These 5 verticals are the classifications of connected wearable devices, connected cars, connected homes, connected cities and the industrial internet. It is through these 5 verticals where she believes that the long term success of the IoT will depend on the “use cases that help realize the economic potential of connecting billions of devices to either improve the quality of life or save money” (Jankowski 2014).

Source: http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/10/the-sectors-where-the-internet-of-things-really-matters/

While Jankowski seems to believe that the IoT will be with us in less than a decades time, tech analyst firm Gartner in contrast to this believe that the IoT is “the most over-hyped technology in development today” (Hern 2014). They believe that the IoT concept is at the “peak of inflated expectations”. Gartner’s analysts believe this, because of a lack of standardisation in the area, on top of the changing nature of technology itself as the reason to believe that widespread adoption is further than its promoters think (Hern 2014). Gartner states that the IoT and its innovations are too over-hyped at the moment and will just eventually reach a “trough of disillusionment”, where a realisation will sink in that what theorists hoped would be achieved will just be another example of where some technology doesn’t perform to the expectations (Hern 2014).

What will the future of the IoT hold we are not to sure but I am kind of hoping that Gartner is wrong and this doesn’t become another example of over-hyped technology. It seems so promising and yet quite frightening at the same time. It’s effect right now is unknown however the IoT may just drastically alter and improve our lives or it may negatively mean that constant connectivity will downgrade society. Whatever your view, for now we can only sit back and watch the future of the IoT develop in front of our very own eyes and then when we look back see if it really has come to fruition or that it has been nothing but another over-hyped example.

References

Cheser, C 2003, ‘Layers of Code, Layers of Subjectivity’, Culture Machine, vol.5, http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/rt/printerFriendly/255/238

Mitew, T 2014, ‘Do objects dream of an internet of things?’, The Fibreculture Journal: general issue, vol. 23, pp.3-26

Hern, A 2014, ‘Internet of Things is the most over-hyped technology, says analysts’, The Guardian, 12 August, viewed 21 April 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/12/internet-of-things-most-over-hyped-technology

Jankowski, S 2014, The Sectors Where the Internet of Things Really Matter, Harvard Business Review Blog Network, blog post, 22 October, viewed 21 April 2015, http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/10/the-sectors-where-the-internet-of-things-really-matters/

How can we make ‘Bring Your Own Device’ work?

Remember those days when you used to go to school with some notebooks in your bags and a couple of pens and you used to have to sit there and write… yes actually write. Remember them? Well the days of learning at schooling are much different today to say the six years ago when I was graduating from high school. The thought of using a laptop at school never once came into mind however today the use of laptops and furthermore all forms of digital devices are “just as much of the culture of education as are pens and papers” (Wright 2013). That’s right, long gone are the days of scribbling on the pages of notebooks for hours on end of your high schooling education – digital devices now play a critical role in the daily high school class.

I was at too late of an age at high school to receive one of the government provided laptops when its new education scheme came into fruition but with the close of the scheme in 2013, there has been many questions raised about the future of education and the presence of the laptop. The problem which arose with the federal governments scheme was that there were many uncertainties surrounding the costs, especially when many of the laptops over time had to be replaced because of maintenance issues and that the technology could become outdated (Wright 2013). On top of this school funding to maintain the costs of the laptops for each student became unsustainable heading into the future.

With the laptop scheme now dismissed by the Federal Government and a new embrace of ‘Bring Your Own Device’ (BYOD) for high school students, there now comes the challenge of what happens with a new inequity among students. Today at “most public high schools students in Years 8 and 9 who missed out on a government laptop are now required to bring an iPad, a tablet or a laptop that must be compatible with school’s existing Wi-Fi network” (Smith 2014). With this though comes the problem of what happens to those students who come from families unable to afford these digital devices. While we can say that yes, in a digital age most families would potentially have some sort of digital device available for use, there are still those less fortunate who cannot afford such devices. The government must work together with its public high schools to find a balance between those students fortunate enough to afford their own device and those less fortunate. Though where does this balance come from?

While I think that BYOD saves a considerable amount of costs for schools while also providing less of a hassle for students in regards to the storing of content on their own devices.  When we consider those unable to afford this BYOD concept, the Federal Government should aim to provide funding for public schools to purchase laptops available for hire or to a cheaper extent (which I feel will be must effective), is to provide plug in hard drives. Portable hard drives will present a significant decrease in costs while more importantly allowing students of families who cannot afford to BYOD, have a technology which still remains personal, portable and usable with school owned laptops and computers in the classrooms. The portable hard drive may just be the balance needed for now in order to respond to the concerns which comes with BYOD for those students who don’t own their own device.

References

Smith, A 2014, ‘End of free laptop program means it’s BYO device now for many high school students’, Sydney Morning Herald, 21 February, viewed 13 April 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/end-of-free-laptop-program-means-its-byo-device-now-for-many-high-school-students-20140220-334bz.html

Wright, J 2013, ‘Computer cash in lap of chaos’, Sydney Morning Herald, 3 February, viewed 13 April 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/computer-cash-in-lap-of-chaos-20130202-2dr65.html

Video Games and Violence: I’ve heard this argument before

Whenever I see an article like Schreier’s (2013) ‘From Halo to Hot Sauce: What 25 Years of Violent Video Game Research Looks Like’ it immediately draws my attention. I know just exactly what the article is going to discuss – Do video games make you violent?. I’m one to immediately go to the defence of video games because I am definitely one who disregards this notion that it’s all video games fault for the violent thoughts or actions of small minority. Schreier (2013) states that it’s a debate that has been going on for over 25 years and there is no signs of it stopping and it is just exactly that a debate, with no justifiable answer. Although I’m going to give you opinion on the situation anyway and with that there is no better example to use than Grand Theft Auto (GTA).

The GTA series has always been acknowledged for its violent gameplay. The argument raised by gamers though is that just like any other art form such as a film, television show or book, GTA V is there to tell a story. It possesses a R18+ rating because its intended audience are mature enough to recognize that it is in fact a game and not real life. However when scenes such as the torture scene in GTA V arise, it creates a reaction from the media in that this game presents a potential harm to a child and society due to incorrect interpretations. However an argument can be raised in that, has the media not recognized that torture scenes are present in other texts and more specifically films? Are the torture scenes in movies such as Zero Dark Thirty, Reservoir Dogs, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Casino Royal any different? Or even in the PG rated film Shrek; where a young audience witnesses Lord Farquaad interrogating the Ginger Bread Man. Despite the example of Shrek, the questions which need to be asked are that, would a parent allow their child below 17 to watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre or other horror films such as Saw? Or would a parent allow their child to watch Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad? The answer would most probably be no, so then why is it any different with violent video games such as GTA V?

Watch GTA V torture scene here…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97_43ajj5Mo

There seems to be a misunderstanding between video games and the media. Focusing on the case of the 18 and under gamers, if the media believes that parents need to raise concerns about GTA V, then why are they buying it for their children in the first place? A child cannot purchase it due to the its rating, so shouldn’t the blame then fall on parents for purchasing it for their child?

We must understand that video games are graphical art. They push the boundaries to evolve just like a player would in the game itself. GTA V success is unrivalled by any other video game title and therefore the boundaries that are pushed by GTA V must be to what gamers want in their gaming experience. GTA V, like any other entertainment source is there to engage, entertain and tell a story therefore captivating its audience, and just like a film or television show it’s not real life. Video games are just that, a game; played in an imaginary world with fictional characters aimed to captivate and not motivate “prostitution, torture and murder” (Morris 2014).

So how can we justify that video games are at fault for small minority who seem to step outside the boundaries? I don’t believe it’s the video games industry’s fault. Maybe we should start looking at the individual rather than making video games the scapegoat?

References

Morris, J 2014, ‘Anyone claiming Grand Theft Auto 5 is just violence for violence’s sake hasn’t played it’, The Guardian, 1 January, viewed 29/3/2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/31/grand-theft-auto-5-torture-violence-video-games

Schreier, J 2013, ‘From Halo To Hot Sauce: What 25 Years of Violent Video Game Research Looks Like’, Kotaku, 17 January, viewed 24/3/2015, http://kotaku.com/5976733/do-video-games-make-you-violent-an-in-depth-look-at-everything-we-know-today

Johnny might be worried for good reason.

In this week’s topics we are looking the views of cyberspace and its inhabitants during the 1980s to the 2000s and beyond. In these topics the relevance of a technological world and its constant alteration on the world we live in is discussed.

Looking at William Gibson’s ‘Johnny Mnemonic’ (1988), Gibson stresses in his story the idea of identity. Gibson does this through a portrayal of Johnny’s pride in the fact that he is technical. However despite this at second thought Gibson (1988) makes note that Johnny becomes disappointed with himself as a result that his ‘technophilic self’ life has become altered. This has come through a change, brought about by a very real technological existence in his life. Johnny notices that there has been a change in his life away from the interaction with people but rather with the ‘technics’ of life.

“And it came to me that I had no idea at all of what was really happening, or of what was supposed to happen. And that was the nature of my game, because I’d spent most of my life as a blind receptacle to be filled with other people’s knowledge and then drained, spouting synthetic languages I’d never understand. A very technical boy”. (Gibson 1988)

While Johnny stresses his concerns, Tomas (2000) in ‘The Technophilc Body’ draws on Gibson’s (1988) story in Johnny Mnemonic to make note that this fictional world Johnny worries about now has a very real contemporary existence. To Tomas (2000) the ‘technophilic body’ is quickly becoming apparent as he confirms that “given recent advances in information technology, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology, these changes will encompass the human body and its sensorial architecture”.

After reading all this, the question lies in what are the threats which are posed into the future as the ‘technophilic body’ expands further? As we will undoubtedly see an expansion in the amount of digital devices and their capabilities, these will go on to even further encompass the already existing ‘technophilic body’ which we pertain. If Johnny was worried in 1988 and Tomas in 2000 stated that we should “expect to see ongoing changes which will produce new domains of domination, contestation and resistance”, you can only wonder what does the ‘technophilic body’ pose for society and the individual beyond this decade.

References

Gibson, W. 1984 “Johnny Mnemonic.”  Burning Chrome.

Tomas, D. 2000, “The Technophilic Body: On Technicity in William Gibson’s Cyborg Culture.” The Cybercultures Reader.  Ed. David Bell and Barbara Kennedy.  London: Routledge.  175-89.