Posts Tagged ‘web’

The slow criminalisation of us all

I received another email today from the EFA stop censorship list pointing to Yet Another Call for Censorship (YACfC) and rating of Internet sites. It’s rather ironic that these calls receive any airtime, because they are essentially pointing to the criminalisation of large portions of the population and the infantalisation of us all.

In relatively recent times, in Australia, we have had changes in copyright law which resulted in the criminalisation of a large proportion of the population because it’s now against the law the watch a recorded video more than once (among other things).  How many of us record something and just watch it once?  But, with the wisdom of ages, it was deemed that this activity was not lawful.  Time shifting of content is only a once off affair.  How could anyone think that a recording of a TV program which one day could be kept indefinitely and watched frequently while the next was illegal was worthy of a legislative change?

We’re now facing a global challenge to what is considered okay.  Going is our ability to choose what we do when we use the Internet, most notably the World Wide Web (which is not equivalent, but let’s not let technicalities get in the way).  Why does anyone think it’s appropriate to restrict what is available on the web – which, I might add, is a grown ups place!  The majority of internet users are adults[1].  Why is it that we, the adults of the world, get to surf a kiddy internet instead of the real internet?

It struck me this morning that there has been a trend in parenting that is perhaps partly responsible for the current shifts.  Helicopter parents try to control every aspect of their children’s lives, every decision, every mistake.  Children (and we’re talking about 20 somethings here) need to have their parents ring their employer, their bank, their credit agencies, because they are children and cannot make decisions.  This is the kind of thinking that we are dealing with.  These Helicopter Parents, grounded in the benefit of growing up making their own mistakes, want to save their children from the pain of those mistakes[2].  Why would anyone want their children to remain children for so long?  Is this a response to empty nest syndrome?

But the thing that really struck me as I contemplated censorship and helicopter parents is that we are now entering an era of Helicopter Governance.[3]  Gone will be our ability to make mistakes and to learn from them.  No more will we be at risk of losing, of being hurt.  In its place will be laws for our protection, laws that make adults criminal.

I often contemplate what I would do if I ever did happen to find some child sexual abuse material[4] on the internet.  Would I be able to report it? Would I be able to do anything to protect that child?  Can I safely report that to the Police for investigation? Or will I be investigated for viewing child p0rn?  Will I have my life turned upside down in an effort to save the children from being saved?

Please, I’m 47.  I’m an adult.  I want to take risks.  I want to learn from my mistakes.  I want to push the boundaries of what it is to know, what we can learn from each other.  Don’t make me a criminal for doing my that!

  1. okay, I made that statistic up, but I’m pretty sure it’s correct and it has as much legitimacy as any of the fear mongering stats []
  2. among other things []
  3. See here for another example. []
  4. aka child p0rn []

Tags: , , ,

Privacy … Ya reckon?

As part of the ongoing saga about the netfilters here in Aus, I went looking for what things there were that helped young people understand the implications of internet use.  I came across Cybersmart Detective, a website that is supported by ACMA (The Australian Communications and Media Authority).  The website states that it is

an innovative online game that teaches children key internet safety messages in a safe environment.

That sounds all well and good.  But, I have some doubts.  Serious doubts.  You see, I never take a website on face value (and neither should you).  So I poked around and found their privacy statement.  Their safety policy and disclaimer are similarly worded.  Not so the credits.  Someone takes credit for this site.

I’ve sceencapped the privacy statement for posterity.  Just in case they realise the mistake that they made in 2006 and get around to correcting it.

Cybersmart?

I find this very ironic and really hope that someone thinks of the children’s education and their ability to actually make decisions about what’s safe and not on the web.

I’m Net Alarmed!  Are you?

Tags: , ,

Flitteracy: literacy for the web

There are so many different ways of thinking about what it is we do.  The paper that I’ve just finished ended up being more about literacy than I expected.  It started out as an analysis of the Beijing ticketing scam and become so much more.  It lead to all sorts of Thought Bunnies (TM) hopping in and out of my head.

Luke and I were rabbiting on the other day about fliters and conceptions and all kinds of framings and reframings of what we do when we’re reading on the web.  We came up with conceptions as a kind of MetaFilter (but not that metafilter).  We filter all sorts of things, piecing them together as we may. It just seemed that our research areas (Problem solving and Web stuff) were coming together, but we’re still not sure how.

We tried rich pictures and ended up with two conceptions of conceptions.  There’s something here and it seems that reading web pages (or Flitteracy) is a problem that must be solved somehow by each of us, although there are many things that remain true (ish) for all of us.

How are we filtering the web?

And that’s where I get stuck.  We have this problem of sense-making, which each of us do individually, but we also do together.  The very nature of the web means that it is a communal ‘thing’.  We flit from site to site and build our own rich picture of information, but what is it that propels us through this web.  Is it a push factor or a pull factor?  We could be pushed away because where we are is not living up to our expectations, or we could be pulled somewhere by the promise of something more shiny.  Perhaps that’s why I like tabbed browsing so much.  If something pulls me away, entices me with ‘teh shineh’, I can always find my way back simply by closing the tab.  I can find a new path, a new way forward.

Heh, we don’t have an information superhighway – we have an information flitterway!

Tags: ,

What Dr Seuss can tell us about New Media

My favourite story as a child was one of Dr Seuss’s stories was The Glunk That Got Thunk. I have been trying and trying to find this and when I noticed a whole swag of Seuss books in the local bookshop, I went on a search to find that story. Thanks to the glory that is the Intarweb, I managed to find out that it’s one of the stories in I Can Lick 30 Tigers Today And Other Stories. It’s one of the ‘Other Stories’.

But what was it about that story that so entranced me as a child. One thing is that the lead character is a female, a very imaginative individual (although the story is narrated by her brother). It’s a story about the power of our imaginations, that we can imagine anything, from friendly little things to a Glunk.

Now the Glunk wasn’t quite that friendly and got up to all sorts of mischief, including long distance calls to his mother to share his recipe for Glunker Stew[1]. Try though she might, the young girl cannot Unthunk the Glunk. Of course, as a story of the 1960′s, the hero of the story is actually the narrator, the brother. He manages to help her finally Unthunk the Glunk.

In my search for this book, I came across a number of different interpretations, one of which was that too much imagination can be a bad thing, but I always believed that it was a story about the Power of Imagination and my reading of it is that there is even more Power in Collective Imagination.

So what does this have to do with New Media?

Well, I’m glad you asked. You see, I do spend quite a bit of time reading lots of stuff on the web[2]. And in many of the stories, there’s this belief that there is power in collaborative endeavours.  One of the most pervasive occurrences of the Internet era is the shifts in process that allow collaboration and sharing. Indeed the foundation upon which the World Wide Web was based is the idea of allowing multiple people access to a shared repository of information (Berners-Lee, 1990).

From this foundation, which is based upon sharing, we can envisage greater collectives.  Not the Borgian style collective of the Star Trek universe, but sharing ideals and ideas (via websites and blogs, no less).  So here we are, with a collective imagination of unforeseen power and it’s being broken.  I think there are people out there actively trying to unthunk the internet.  People like the MPAA and the RIAA (and here in Australia, we have ARIA and MIPI et al).  They want to unthink the sharing capabilities that we possess.  All in the name of protecting copyright.

But there’s a problem with their imaginative abilities.  And I don’t think their unthunking abilities can equal the power of the collective imagination of connected people.  Forget the fact that they don’t want us to place shift nor time shift[3]); what they don’t realise (or maybe they do and dismantling the internet is what they are actually aiming for) is that as soon as we have access to something, there is a copy of it.  We cannot view, listen, read, hear, see, think, click, load, indeed any activity done on a computer as each activity is an act of copying.

Getting back to the Glunk.  The internet (and maybe even the personal computer) is a Glunk in the eyes of the traditional distributors of media (and just try to distribute without copying, oh, but they own the copyright, not the artists, funnily enough).  They are desperately trying to unthink it.  They have achieved an incredible amount towards this goal, (eg the DMCA, Canadian Copyright reforms deforms, the rewriting of Australian copyright, ad nauseum).  They are really trying to break the internet and getting ISPs on board to do their dirty work (see multiple posts at Techdirt tagged under recording industry).

But for the rest of us, I think the traditional distributors are a Glunk that got thunk by artists[4], some of whom still seem to believe it’s a fuzzy friendly thing, not the ravenous beast that it is.  Ironically, it seems to be feeding off the morals of various governments as well as a collective dis-imagining made possible only by a lack of critical foresight.

References

Berners-Lee, T., 1990, Information Management: A Proposal, http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal-msw.html [Accessed: September 3, 2006]

Seuss, D. I can Lick 30 Tigers Today! And Other Stories. Collins, 1969

  1. Glunker Stew seems to be a bizarre concoction that only a Glunk could like []
  2. otherwise known as faffing around []
  3. Place shifting includes putting things on your iPod; Time shifting includes recording things on video (either disk or tape []
  4. This may be a huge assumption on my part, but I wasn’t around when it started, so I could be making everything up. []

Tags: , ,

MP: The static web page

static cat

Where would we be without the static web page[1]? This bastion of forgotten technology is probably one of the best places to start with my project because we seem to have moved on from it and yet not.

I see the static web page as a holder of critical information, a pointer to things needed. The static web page allows us to provide necessary information, the needful things. Where there are facts and figures to remember, the static web page comes in handy. Overviews and standard procedures are wonderfully served by the static web page.

I think it is useful for students to find that unchanging information is unchanging. Pedagogically, the structure of a course or program or activity should be unchanging at one level (the most broad level) so students (and their teachers) can chart their progress and improvement against a set standard or set of criteria. So the static web page points to expectations of students about what is to be learnt and, at the same time, what teachers/instructors expect – the outcomes of learning.

There are other ways of communicating this information, but, if we are focussing on technologies, the static web page and its traditional counterpart, the paper page, provide clear paths to learning outcomes.

  1. This is part of my Mapping Pedagogy project. []

Tags: , ,

Theme by RoseCityGardens.com
Modified by Me!