"Produsage" & Other Dirty Words

A producer is someone or something that is able to produce.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/producer

Produce what? Anything, be in tangible/intangible; a good, service or simply content.


"Scumbag" Youtube.
http://www.quickmeme.com/Scumbag-Youtube/


Now, a user is someone who uses that production (yes yes, that’s two definitions with variations of the word in the answer but we’re all adults here). So, basically we could say the user is someone who uses a good, service or any kind of content.

But what happens when a user can be a producer? AN ABOLUTE GAME CHANGER, THAT’S WHAT!!!!!!

This phenomenon has been coined as the term "produsage" and is ramped all over the internet as websites like youtube, wikipedia, facebook, reddit, or even this very site (blogger).

So now that we know what on earth produsage is it remains to be seen, is it good, bad, or (as aforementioned) ugly.

The good of produsage is obvious, it allows content from Mr.Everyman to reach potentially millions of viewers. This unlocks more than just fame, it gives potentially anybody a voice. Where would Justin Bieber be without the internet? Probably being beaten up for looking like a girl in some secondary school in Canada. For those who don’t know when he was young Bieber was discovered by talent manager Scooter Braun on Youtube, where his mother posted videos of him singing for his family.



The internet can be a weird place.
http://www.stuffistumbledupon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Justin-Beanber-justin-bieber-selena-gomez-meme-mr-bean-bieber-fever-lol-lulz-funny-pictures_thum.jpg

User generated content can do more good then make people like Biebs famous (thank god for that). It allows anyone to speak an option, show a piece of art, or simply muck around. From this position perspective it is easy to see the good that can come from produsage.

The bad of produsage lies in not simply the users but the corporations behind it. Sure, youtube and blogger are great little tools curtesy of our overlords at the Google Corporation but herein lies the problem, produsage mediums aren't maintained to allow pure sharing for the user but rather to make money for the corporations.

And since these mediums exist to make money, all kinds of "who owns the content" issues emerge. Recently "Nintendo flexed its YouTube copyright muscle by issuing 'content ID match' claims on 'Let's Play' videos featuring its game franchises." Basically anything on YouTube featuring anything from Nintedo was fair game. "Prolific YouTuber Zack Scott, who is currently playing Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, claims that Nintendo has made content claims on several of his videos, meaning ad revenue received from those videos will instead go to Nintendo rather than Scott."

Whilst it's true that Nintendo owns the images, Zack made that content and viewers watch it to hear his take. It's a prickly area.

Read more at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124066-Nintendo-Suddenly-Claims-Ownership-Of-Many-YouTube-Videos#QmlLp7J4yv6UT3iA.99

A T-Shirt Design from http://igametees.com/

Other bad point include the fact it is destroying all old media putting the average journalist out of work but some would say old media is dying and creating new work and opportunities in new media so this is neither here nor there.

Well well, the good and the bad of produsage is there for all of us to see, but most of you intelligent readers could easily identify the reasons above and many more. But where exactly does it get ‘ugly’? It gets ugly when the lines between the producer and the user don’t merely get blurred but completely corrupted.

In 2011 two attractive Kiwi lasses experimenting with cameras in their jeans and seeing how the lads of LA react. However we are being utterly and completely lied to. This video and the other couple in the series were produced by Levi Jeans as part of their Skinny jeans ad campaign.

http://fashionista.com/2011/02/exclusive-levis-is-behind-that-viral-butt-cam-video/

For more examples of fake viral videos used for advertising go here.

So, the point when it gets ugly is when the users think they are viewing content being generated by other users but it is actually them being cleverly marketed to thus thoroughly corrupting the whole system. Because after all, produsage is anonymous and thus thoroughly corruptible.

Are these mediums really giving us a voice or merely a like or digg button, is this really what we could consider a voice?

So the good is the fact it allows anyone anywhere to have a voice to the chorus, the bad is it is merely a tool for profit (the user being part of the tool) and the ugly is how thoroughly corruptible the whole thing is.

Produsage is certainly here to stay and we, the user, have to start wielding it as a weapon of free action and speech rather then let the corporationyness of it all get through.

Social Media is the World's Political Soapbox and Other Harsh Truthes

Let me tell you a story, once upon a time the twittersphere and other social media goodies were only used by tech geeks and the young, who made up a relatively small portion of the voting population. Hard to believe isn't it?

How come he dies in every movie/series he's in?
http://memegenerator.net/instance/27881398

Today everyday people in the western world (not Westeros) flock to all kinds of social media and politicians have recognised its influence over the masses and tapped into social media to enhance their political campaigns and exposure.

Social media enables a two way conversation between politicians and the electorate. Many politicians have their own blogs, websites, Facebook page and Youtube channels through which they can promote themselves and construct an image of how their audience sees them. In the past, the only way to find information about an election or a politician was through television and newspapers. Nowadays, even ordinary citizens can challenge their leaders and get a direct answer from them through media channels. Infact, nowadays it's proven people think a candidate who sends out her own online messages and interacts with voters electronically is more honest.

With the use of social media, politicians have a lot more exposures than ever before and definitely put themselves at an advantage than those who don't. Politicians are no longer just the mysterious figures who we only see on TV. We now can interact with the leaders. In many cases, the integrated use of social media has proven to be much more effective than just one used alone.

http://thefw.com/funniest-memes-of-the-week-2/

The use of social media by politicians takes many forms. There's of course your standard facebook/twitter feed (which truth be told is probably run by their press agent with minimal politician input) all the way to using more engaging forums like a Google+ hangout or even a Reddit AMA. Barrack Obama infact did an AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit in 2012, inwhich he allowed the userbase of Reddit to ask him anything (though obviously he didn't answer some of the more ludicrious questions like "Would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or 1 horse-sized duck?").

Hey, everyone: I'll be taking your questions online today. Ask yours here: OFA.BO/gBof44 -bo
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 29, 2012

You can read Obama's AMA here.

Basically, it's probably fair to say Social Media in politics is almost becoming an arms race to see who can get their message out to their costituents in the most creative and engaging way.
 

To continue using Obama as an example, social media has made political campaigns never before reach out to and interact with as many young people as it does today. The youth vote played a pivotal role in Barack Obama’s presidential victory. The Obama Campaign in 2008 has proven online engagement can lead to enormous influence—he had more than 3 million Facebook friends, 8.5 million monthly visitors to MyBarackObama.com and 135,000 Youtube subscribers. He's presence was everywhere in the youth-dominated media. By adding Obama as a friend of your own social network, you feel as if you knew him and connect with him. It is at your fingertip to get to know a politician's childhood, life stories and political ambitions and make your own judgement who to vote for. The American youth were never so motivated and engaged with their national election before Obama. Traditional forms of campaign are more targeted at the general public, and have often ignored the importance of a more specific youth group.

Bill O'Riely, destroying balanced politics with all kinds of media.

Even in non-Western countries the use of social media in politics is taking off. In China where no votes are needed for election, politicians have also begun to embrace micro blogging, but just like in the west it's a double edged sword with social media even being used to leak things from within the communist party (formely seen as infalible).


There is no doubt that social webs have been big contributors to the political landscape. It can be used effectively to get your campaign message out and will become increasingly important in presidential political campaigns in the years to come.

"Clicktivism" and other lazy ways for Activists to make their point

This image is a summary of what you're about to read.
http://www.theawl.com/2012/11/the-meme-election

"Clicktivism", a subset of the concept "slacktivism", refers to using social media to organised activism and/or protest. It allows organizations to quantify their success by keeping track of how many people "clicked" on their petition or other call to action.

This usually leads to events that attract a LOT of attention but very little actual follow through.

The reason clicktivism is considered slack, lazy, and doesn't actually work is that it doesn't involve a real life, physical protest. Critics of clicktivism point to the fact that this new phenomenon turns social movements to resemble advertising campaigns in which messages are tested based on how many clicks they get, in other words how "viral" they go. In order to improve these metrics, messages are reduced to make their "asks easier and actions simpler." This in turn reduces social action to having members that are a list of social media details rather than a real life commitment.

To 'go viral' means "a piece of content spreading just like a virus if people become “infected” when they see it. The infection usually comes from evoked emotions that spur the viewer to share it, so they can relate with other people and discuss how they feel.

Anything can go viral on the Internet, whether it’s a photo, an animation, an article, a quote, a tweet, a person, an animal, an idea, an argument, a coupon, an event or anything else—it has the power to go viral if it appeals enough to the masses and is shareable."

- About.com Webtrends (http://webtrends.about.com/od/howtoguides/a/Viral-Online.htm)

Going viral and clicktivism basically allow for activist organisations to dig up a lot of faux support, without necessarily having any real life follow through.

A great example is One "Million" Mums, an organisation that get's a whole lot of airtime in the American media despite being well short of a million strong (under 2500 twitter followers and 121 Facebook likes). The organisation claims to be made up of Mum's who are "sick of the trash in today's media". This is an example of the staggering amount of lazy attention the internet can gain an extremist organisation that doesn't actually have any legs.

I suppose in real life activism is a die hard you're-with-or-against-us kind of thing, whereas with online activism you're just one click away from committing your name to a cause, no action required. 

No one event encapsulates the failure of online activism more than Kony 2012. Which we'd remember had the positive message of capturing an African Warlord who uses child soldiers named Joseph Kony. The video went extraordinarily viral, getting millions of views with the plan for people to unite on a particular day and achieve change. By the time the day came around people had lost interest and sadly Kony is still at large today.

The basic mentality of everyone involved.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/kony-2012

You can read more about this extraordinary failure here.

I guess what I'm saying is, online activism is hugely hit and miss. This extends to the point that in my opinion many activist organisations can seemingly have a good aim but fail at it purely due to the fact that on Web 2.0 it's bloody hard to hold someone's attention.

As an ending note to all you online activists that waste your time harping on online about your personal bugbears insistently I say sarcastically...

Not! Get out there and do something or not at all.
Produced up with by me using www.quickmeme.com

"Dumb" Phones & other ironic wordplay.

"Jailhouse" Smartphone by Brian K for Go Outside Magazine
http://felipeluchi.com/59761/522767/advertising/go-outside-magazine-jailhouses

A smartphone is a little box where your social skills go to die. But... perhaps I should give you a less biased definition, for argument's sake.

A smartphone is a “cellular telephone with built-in applications and Internet access. Smartphones provide digital voice service as well as text messaging, e-mail, Web browsing, still and video cameras, MP3 player, video viewing and often video calling. In addition to their built-in functions, smartphones can run myriad applications, turning the once single-minded cellphone into a mobile computer.”
- PC Mag Encyclopedia. 

So basically a Smartphone is everything under the sun wrapped up in a little package all for your convenience, that's a little bit more of an optimistic summary.

Smartphones link us all in ways would couldn’t dream of 15 years ago, let alone 5, which leads to immeasurable profits for the big corporations as well as infinite opportunities of connection for us as users, but at what cost does this connection come?

So very true. And sad.
http://funny-pictures-blog.com/2011/12/31/nokia-vs-iphone-meme/

A Smartphone is the gift the keeps on giving to the corporations, gone are the days when you’d buy your Nokia 3210 where you’d have your texting, calling and that little bit of entertainment of the side Snake (or Snake 2 if you were pretty special). We’ve come a long way from those days with Smartphones allowing us all to put our finger on the pulse of everyone else’s fingers.

The smartphone is a clever little tool because once upon a time a phone was a one off sale but now it’s the gift that keeps on giving to the corporations. They say "it's a service now, not a product" but we can safely say a better name for it would be a cash-cow. This "service" takes the form of apps.

Indeed.
http://www.memecenter.com/fun/171580/remake-of-app-store-meme

Apps are the new drug of choice for many people from all walks of life, making millions upon millions of dollars at a constant rate for all the big companies. Truly ingenious, and that’s not even getting started on the internet usage fees being charged by the phone companies who pay Apple, for example, millions of dollars for the privilege of buying and selling it’s products. 

As much many as Apple makes from its App Store it isn’t all THAT bad, it does give the Indie developer a chance of sucsess (even if Apple are taking much of the profits). Steve Demeter, the lone developer of iPhone game Trism, made $250,000 in it’s first two months of Sale.

"I really didn’t think about the money, I got an e-mail from a lady who’s like, a 50-year-old woman who says, ‘I do not play games, but I love Trism.’ That’s what I did it for."

– Steve Demeter (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/09/indie-developer/).

This quote segways well into my main point, Smartphones (and their big brother tablets) run very intuative and simplistic operating systems which means they reach demographics computers never could. So in that Smartphone transcend market segments (age, nationality, geographic location, sex)they are allowing us all to connect to each other on a constant near meaningless basis.

Should I (or do I) care that that pretty girl I met once as a barbeque has a new cat? No, but with a Smartphone I can view the pictures of it as a catch a train to work.

The Internet (Read: Reddit) F#$%ing loves cats.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/12nwpy/depressed_cat/

Smartphones undoubtably have a negative effect on the social and ethical behaviour of those that use them. They breed a culture of introverted, isolated, and all-in-all socially crippled people who are unable to deal with real human interaction because they have been trained to communicate with others through their little tidbits of text (but more on that in other posts). Through this, they reduce the social standards of the populace and breed the idea that ignoring social standards and laws. No good can come from this perpetual needless flow of information that is purported to ‘connect’ us.

"Does Facebook really connect people? Doesn't it rather disconnect us, since instead of doing something enjoyable such as talking and eating and dancing and drinking with my friends, I am merely sending them little ungrammatical notes and amusing photos in cyberspace, while chained to my desk?... Clearly, Facebook is another uber-capitalist experiment: can you make money out of friendship? Can you create communities free of national boundaries -- and then sell Coca-Cola to them? Facebook is profoundly uncreative. It makes nothing at all. It simply mediates in relationships that were happening anyway."
- Tom Hodgkinson, writer for the Guardian (http://socialnetworking.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001614)

 Now I enjoy my iPhone 5 (previously my iPhone 2, 3s, and 4), it’s Angry Birds, Facebook, Sport articles, memes, and constant Facebook updates as much as the next guy (possibly more, I am head over heels addicted) and yet I can still recognise the issues when I see them. Smartphones are a vechile for profits and social degradation.

These is all this talk in the gadget media of 'what will be the iPhone killer?', the iPhone killer should be social conscience, we need to wake up and see where this stuff is leading us.

"First" post & other obvious realities.



Source - http://www.thesochillnetwork.com/post/29055837697/the-sound-of-bane
(though it mightn't be from here, it's pretty hard to trace the origins of memes)

This blog's purpose built to cover a variety of "topical" subjects regarding technology, the internet, and social media. 

Which definition of topical? You decide.

Topical:
Noun - A postage stamp forming part of a set or collection with designs connected with the same subject.
Adjective - (of a subject) Of immediate relevance, interest, or importance owing to its relation to current events.