virtual communities

i c erika's post saying that the purpose of our blogs is not to summarise lectures/notes/readings, but rather engage with the content of the paper on a more personal level. so here goes.

i find the subj. matter of last week's readings pretty interesting; and i think it would be a safe bet to say that the majority, if not all of, the class would consider the topic relevant to their own lives.

i think i was about 13 when we got our first PC. my computer skills at the time were basically restricted to using microsoft works (i could whip up some pretty sweet party invitations) and playing sim city. however, as time passed, my utilisation of the computer (particularly my internet usage) continued to develop.

the first social network i joined online was myspace; and while i've stopped using that i now also have both a bebo (for friends) and a facebook (which all my cousins, who are older than me and are mostly all overseas doing their OEs, have... i use it solely to keep in touch with them). before enrolling in this paper, i had kind of presumed - incorrectly - that these were the only "virtual communities" i engaged in.

but then i thought about it, and realised that my participation in virtual communities extended beyond the obvious. now, being a POLS student for the first year, i have decided to become a bit more vocal about my opinions. thru clubs & socs i joined a political party (the youth branch). this year, a VC was formed using yahoo groups in order for everybody in the club to keep in touch with one another. it's also used to let everybody know the topic of conversation for the following meeting, amongst other things.

also, on an even more personal level, this year my younger sister and i are having to go thru some family-orientated stuff. while i have an awesome group of friends, who would have no problem being there to talk to, i have found that a group i came across online is really helping my cope with it all. being able to discuss things online (things that that would potentially make me uncomfortable in face-to-face situations) is not only really helpful simply because i'm getting it out, but i'm also talking about it with people who are in similar situations - there are dozens of people, engaging with one another, geographically separate but not isolated from one another.

i think all of these virtual community platforms differ to a degree chosen by the user themself. it's up to you how much info you share in each community, and if you're like me then it will be different across all platforms.

well, hopefully that was kind of what we were meant to write about... hope everybody had a good long weekend.

hacking! (cue ominous background music..)

week three was dedicated to hacking, crackers, and hacktivism.

the readings this week made me realise how prejudicial my image of hackers really was, courtesy of the media. like a lot of people, i was guilty of thinking that hackers only did what they do to wreak mayhem and essentially just mess with people.

lets start with hactivism. sit-ins and other forms of protest in the past were also regarded as pushing the boundaries. however, looking back now the majority of people would agree that these forms of protest were beneficial and morally right. and most importantly, justified. so in the face of a constantly evolving world, people are undoubtedly going to utilise advancements in technology - increasingly prevalent - in order to challenge doctrines of oppression or injustice. perhaps my belief that this kind of hacking is, in a lot of cases, justified stems from my own personal beliefs: others may disagree in regards to whether hactivisim is right or wrong. if i lived in the 1800s i would have protested for womens rights. if i had lived in the 1960s i would have protested against segregation. if i was that passionate about an issue (and lets face it, if i was actually skilled enough to hack into a computer system) then may circumstances would see me becoming a hacktivist myself.

on the other hand, hacking for financial gain, or hacking to cause distress to somebody, is not something i could condone. while this doesn't fit with the ethics of hacking, the fact is that somewhere out there it potentially happens. if people have the ability to hack into systems in order to protest against something, then the ability to hack into somebodies bank account is there. depending on the person, this can no doubt be utilised.

it was also interesting to me to read about the difference between old school and new school hackers. the impression i got from the readings was that there is a lot of reciprocal disdain and animosity between those who class themselves as old school and those who class themselves as new school. personally, i'm kind of on the new school hackers' side. the old school hackers not only sold out and made millions of dollars each, the advances that they themselves made were used for some pretty unjust causes: like producing missiles capable of destroying x number of people. and the new school hackers also argue that they are simply doing what hackers preceding them did: the whole "information wants to be free" argument.

ultimately, hackers push boundaries. whether or not each hacker can justify what they do depends on the circumstances.

remember: all virtual communities are networks, but not all networks are virtual communities!

as i've said before, i am definitely not the most tech-savvy person out there. from reading other people's blogs, i've gotten the same feeling from everybody else: i was pretty intimidated when i first began taking this paper, and worried it would be a bit dull. but those preconceptions have been completely unfounded... the content of the paper has been really interesting, which is kind of minimising how hard i find it to deal with the tech language.

so, the main thing i took from week 2's lectures and readings was the idea of users, networks and structures. in short, the architecture of the internet itself. the topic made me think of just how prevalent the internet - specifically virtual communities - are in my life personally. i have a facebook, a myspace, AND a bebo. and that's not even unusual, especially for gen y. i don't use them all the time or anything, but just by signing up, joining a few groups and posting a bit of info about me i have made myself a virtual community member. these online communities form when people participate - as we learned, the fundamental component of the net is people rather than the technology itself. the technology is simply used by individuals, who in turn create the communities. in saying that, online identity is pretty fluid. people can reveal as much about themselves as they choose, or even remain anonymous. but even an anonymous user is a participant in an online community.

'be here now' (miles) pointed out that "there's a huge difference between the world of online services before and after the invention of the web and of browsers that let us navigate it effectively... the advances in underlying functionality have been used to generate new applications of IT...". i was interested to learn about the first emoticon being sent, used to convey expression. it shows early attempts at forming social cohesion, an important factor in online communities, which begin when emotional bonds link individuals together. blogs, and blogging communities such as the one being simulated for our paper, are an example of how the internet and it's uses have evolved.

the berry piece we read also pointed out that, due to the unrestrictive nature of the internet, users see the internet as a vast public sphere. during our seminar time on thursday, my group discussed copyright issues. there was the expected talk about illegal p2p music downloading, but i was thinking more about intellectual property copyright. because i have written my opinions here in this blog today, in a so-called public space, does that mean it's ok for somebody else to claim my ideas (however yawn worthy they are) as their own? i'd like to think not, but is that legally accurate? also hearing about a research project in the states using facebook profiles made me rethink the amount of information, or the content of information, i post about myself on my social network profiles. while i do know of the dangers of posting too much info about myself on the internet, i don't think that ignorance is bliss in this case. whether i'm informed or not, i don't really want my social network profiles being used for research projects without my consent. so this in itself poses the problem: if the internet is a public space, is anything posted online off limits? by simply posting, does that imply my consent?

well i'm done now. cyas all in class.

post deux

are we meant to do another post this week yet? i think 9ams are too early for me, at the time i think everything is seeping in but it's possibly not... revision is in order i think.

if we are meant to post again, this probably won't count because i'm sleepy and need to go to bed. i just finished going over our readings for the week again - just reading my highlighted bits and bobs so i don't sound like a fool at tomorrow's seminar (fingers crossed! i think i've said that before, so you can tell i'm a superstitious person. therefore i guess you can start to form some ideas of my RL identity like we learned in todays lec! huh huh?)

well that's me done. cyas tomorrow, bright and early :)