The Great Firewall of China

When I heard that in China the government had blocked Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google and then I also heard the country was 'leading the way' when it came to social media, I was very confused. But after watching a speech by Chinese blogger Michael Anti, it all became clear to me. China, as Anti says, likes to block and copy. Block all of these social networking sites and then create new copycat versions that are solely operated within China so that the government can access the information anytime they want.

Michael Anti's speech about the firewall in China

The firewall was introduced in December 2012. It blocks social media websites, certain Wikipedia and news articles and sites such as pornographic sites or religious sites. It is rumoured that there is over 30,000 internet police in China, closely monitoring searches and sites visited (backgroundcheck.org, 2013). And users that try hard enough to bypass the firewall can be reported to authorities.

So whilst in one hand it seems really bad the Chinese cant access world news and contact easily with people from other countries, in a way it also doesn't seem that bad, because they still use other versions of this site, they can just only communicate with each other.

Government censorship like this would not be accepted freely by citizens of Australia, as we are a democracy and it is our right to be able to access a fair level of information. But it seems that for many of the Chinese, it doesn't affect their little world too much.

I don't know what to predict of the firewall in the future, as it has not been running for too long now, but I would say that with a few improvements to leniency, it might just stick around for quite a while to come.

Extremist Groups and Their Love For Social Media

Whether its a white pride group or a group of neo-nazis, extremeists groups often use social media to promote their beliefs and gain recruitments. These are another example of online communities, as they bond over a mutual belief.

The NSM or National Socialist Movement is a global neo nazi extremist group that has a large online presence. On their site they have many videos including one to a song that includes the lyrics 'we want our country back now'. They have thousands of members and is the largest National Socialist party in America and was founded in 1967. They also join with other white supremacist groups and anti-jew groups in order to increase their member number. The website acts as a base for the community, detailing the latest news, showing videos and stating their opinions very opening against minority groups.

A video on the NSM site that is played to disturbing lyrics

Gerstenfeld, Grant and Chiang (2003) conducted a content analysis of extremist Internet sites and found that only roughly half of the sites utilise multimedia content. NSM is one of those groups and utilises this type of media in order to appeal to possible new members, and will also be more appealing to children or teenagers.

One link on the site is to New Saxon an online social networking site for solely for white people of european decent. This again brings their community together, and had the potential to grow quite large.

This is why Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a site that is dedicated to preventing this in justice. 'The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public' (SPLC, 2013).

So whilst the idea may be worrying that there are so many hate extremist groups throughout the internet, there are still organisations that help fight against them.

A Better 'Reality'?

When you are playing The Sims, it is easy for time to get away from you. We all know the feeling of seeing the time and realising a couple hours had actually passed since starting The Sims. For those couple of hours, you were living a 'second life.' For those couple of hours you were living a hyperreality in a virtual reality world.

Hyperreality is 'a condition in which "reality" has been replaced by simulacra' (Baudrillard, 1988). Although the game may represent real life situations and locations, you (the user) are the real creator, you are essentially playing god. You get to control what you look like and how you are perceived by others, you get to control what your sim does next or what job they have. 

The latest addition to The Sim's expansion packs

Does your avatar really look like you? Did you make your avatar skinnier, taller or more attractive than you perceive yourself? Lee (2003) suggests that it may be a projection of the ideal version of yourself. It seems that to some people, living a life that you have complete control over is much more appealing than facing the ups and downs of everyday life.

In the future, will we all live through online personalities? As social media and virtual hyperreality games continue to become more popular, it mean that ordinary interaction in real life situations is instead replaced with a chat bar on an online role-playing game.

Defining Produsage: Wikipedia

Produsage, a term that has been made popular by Australian media scholar, Axel Bruns, is best explained in his own words as 'the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement' (Bruns, 2007). Produsers are the citizens that engage with this ever-growing online collaboration as they are users that are producing information: Producer + user = produser.

It is a concept that may take you a while to get your head around, so the best example that can explain it is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online portal of information on just about every subject, even produsage. Often looked down upon by scholars as a reliable reference of information, it is a site where all of the content is produced by the users of the site. Internet Executive, Mark E. Moran, says 'its [Wikipedia's] reliability and credibility fall well short of the standards for a school paper' and in an online article goes on to provide a number of reasons as to why it is unreliable.Wikipedia admits itself as not being completely credible or reliable.

(wikipedia.org)

Anyone can take part in editing the information on a subject and can add subjects themselves. So in reality, the information provided can be completely made up. However this community of online produsers, constantly wanted to update and improve information, usually fix up any misinformation fast. Many of the contributors to the site back up their information by providing furter references within the wikipedia article, showing that the information is based off more reliable sources.

Wikipedia is today. In this age, the contribution of so many different brains into one article seems reliable enough. Its a method of finding information that will continue to be used by students whether they choose to reference the site or not. Academics should begin to trust the site more as so many of the articles these days are fully referenced.

Do you understand the terms now? Wikipedia is the prime example of how an online community can work together to produce a unique source of information. Wikipedia is produsage.

If you still aren't 100% sure what I'm on about, read it straight from the man himself in Brun's book 'Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage.'

Face-Barrack Obama-Book

In his book, ‘The Virtual Commnunity,” Rheingold (1993) talks about how politicians can reach new audiences by appealing to ‘online communities’ in order to grow support for their political parties. Rheingold may have anticipated that politicians would continue to use social media throughout campaigns in the future in his book, but surely he is surprised now by just how much impact this type of media can have.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are the most utilized social media platforms by politicians these days. One of the best examples of a politician who makes the most of social media is Barrack Obama

(http://www.thesocialmediatrainingschool.com)

With over 31.5 million followers on Twitter, over 290 million YouTube video views and 35 million likes on Facebook, it is clear the amount of effort Obama puts into utilizing all of these different social media sites. It could also be said that without this entire social media campaigning, Obama would not have maintained the followers in order to be elected and re-elected.

In 2008, the year Obama was elected, there was the largestvoter turnout in the US in 50 years. This shows that obviously Obama targeted a range of different people that would not normally vote and urged them to support him. He focused on campaigning to a range of people such as gay and lesbian groups and different ethnic groups, and was able to target these groups more accurately via online communities. 

 (http://blog.petaflop.de)

Social media is imperative for any politician running as a candidate these days and will continue to prove so in the future. This means that younger candidates may just have an advantage as not only are they more likely to have grown up using social media, but they will also appeal to the younger voters. Candidates also need to incorporate some sort of humour or entertainment in their campaigns to keep people engaged long enough on social media sites before they hit refresh on their Facebook feeds or click a recommended video on YouTube.

Politicians need to adapt fast to this type of campaigning as the old conventional ways are becoming close to their use by date.  

Wikileaking The Governments Secrets...

“Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations” (Wikileaks 2006).

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvKvTtWMA9_0GPaYWq-lRN0yJ_3uZitdl24I1YTwnSmlsRu9NtdZbFKMfBe8Y5MJXhf7H3sA7kZgEKU-lPHR5p1jMYqvHN-Q96EQ2vunrSn-V_fuSq2s5qxFkVjz1W4e9LtoR6_lAXRq8/s1600/wikiLeaks.jpg)

Founder of investigative journalism, I.F Stone (1990), believes that “all governments lie.” There are many who question the reliability and authenticity of their government and are curious to know what they are hiding. Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks in 2006, gives the public a chance to see what the government is deciding not to disclose to them.

The site has withstood many political and legal attacks that have attempted to silence Assange and his anonymous sources. It has been able to stay because it supports our right to freedom of speech. It is an anti-corruption tool that helps the public see what happens behind the scenes, away from the television and newspapers.

Whilst newspapers claim to write only the truth, you can’t help but think if that is really true. Rupert Murdoch and News Corp, own so much of Australia’s media that if the government were to pay them to write something, it would reach a large portion of Australians. This way the information is unbiased as the original stories are also published. This is the main difference between Wikileaks and investigative journalism. There is no reason for Wikileaks to be biased as it is not for profit, and has a simple goal ‘to bring important news and information to the public.’

The war in Afghanistan is something that regular civilians no little about, besides what the media tells them. In 2010, Wikileaks published a horrifying video showing 15 people being killed by US army soldiers, whilst they laughed, cursed and encouraged each other to keep shooting. This is something that would not have been available to the public without the leak and gives insight into the true nature of the US soldiers.

 (Original video footage of shooting)

Another important story Wikileaks published in 2007, was an insight to living conditions of prisoners at Camp Delta.  The "Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta" handbook for soldiers dealing with the prisoners was released showing that prisoners were denied necessities such as access to the Red Cross and even toilet paper. This allowed citizens to discover the cruel and inhumane processes that their government is actually allowing.

As many other publications would not be authorized to publish these sorts of stories, it’s important for sites like Wikileaks to remain available to the public as it allows them to help prevent government corruption. 

Keyboard Warriors: Today’s Activists

(http://serendipics.blogspot.com.au/2009_05_01_archive.html)

It is a lot easier to protest an issue or voice your opinion when you are sitting safely at home behind a keyboard. For many, protests and riots are a thing of the past, whilst online petitions and Facebook page sharing is right now. Could it be the fact you are anonymous? Or that it’s simply just quicker and easier?

Digital activism can be most simply defined as “when citizens use digital hardware and software to bring about social and political change” (Mary C Joyce, 2013). Social media is the biggest platform for these activists to share their views and take action.

According to Mary C Joyce (2011) “The effect of digital technology on political contention is neither good nor bad, it is both.” Meaning that although there are many positive or constructive aspects of digital activism there are also negative.

In my opinion, the positives way out the negatives and this type of activism is exposed to a whole new audience, prompting more people to help make a difference. Some of the most effective online activism organisations include Avaaz, Make Poverty History, Electronic FrontiersAustralia and GetUp! Action Australia. These sites utilize online petitions and social media whilst aiming to spread awareness.

Malcolm Gladwell (2010) claims that ‘Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice.’ Meaning that it’s easy enough for people to sign an online petition but many of these people would not be bothered to physically do something to make a change. However, a lot of the time, these online petitions call for people to take physical action, one great example being a campaign by Make PovertyHistory. Millions of white wrist bands were bought raising money, 444,00 people emailed the prime minister of England and 225,000 people took to the streets of Edinburgh for the Make Poverty History march, an extremely impressive turnout that wouldn’t have been possible without the internet and social media.

Do you remember the KONY2012 campaign? With over 97million views on the famous viral video, it’s likely you stumbled across it last year. It was a campaign that started out strong and had people donating a lot of money from the very start. However, it wasn’t long until it was called a hoax and this is one reason why digital activism isn’t all positive. It’s hard to tell when something is legit due to anonymity.

 The viral KONY2012 video from Youtube.

In the end, online activism may not always be as effective as traditional activism, but if used correctly, it can really help make a significant difference.