I got this link from Geert’s critique of this video, ‘Michael Wesch Takes On YouTube’ on the video vortex list and in that critique he mentioned the book reference: James Elkens, Visual Studies: A Skeptical Introduction.
John Jacobs a co-producer of the POOL did a guest lecture for IM2 yesterday.It was inspiring to hear from one of the producers on this project, which included some of the more specific processes that the ABC as a public broadcasters are going through in order to engage with social media.
Following is my perspective, notes and ideas that where generated by this presentation. The POOL is an R&D initiative for the ABC and is being built around a philosophy of open content and open source.
In relation to specifics I was interested in work being done around licensing and the site default setting of the most restrictive Creative Commons license. Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). It is good to see these license options including all rights reserved and public domain. Blip tv for example runs the same options and is known in the online video domain to be far more respectful of licensing than YouTube for example. Also, the ABC seem to be working hard to create an even playing field with the content providers where any rights over content on the POOL is reduced to a minimum.
The key here seems to be about respecting attribution with the POOL also looking at how they can track content right through to a remix. A process of geotagging which is starting to be reflected in the metadata that is being added to content as it is uploaded. Correcting this geotagging is a concept the POOL would like to look into down the track. The current tracking and tagging of content is included in the drupal upload form. Operating on another level below content tagging there seems to be a method of classification being used to work out what and who uploaded content in terms of the author and specifics of that content. The Drupal system provides the functionality needed to create these types of automated processes with users and very specific forms. In the content tagging on uploading content onto POOL having default categories to chose from creates a delineated type of categorisation in combination with more user-generated type approaches. Drupal signalling may also be worked in over time. A functionality that responds to individual users engagement with the site.
Jacobs pointed out that a remix, a derivative work can in the context of the POOL and further publication on other ABC platforms, be created by as little as adding fade in and outs. It is useful to acknowledge that a subtle change like this to someone’s content could constitute a remix. The POOL has used a .org domain name http://www.pool.org.au/ to reorientate this intiative into the non-proft arena and create some simpatico with open content/opens source communities.
Questioned on gatekeeping and editorial control of content added to the POOL, Jacobs explained that they are working with social media mechanisms that encourage the users to be involved in this process. Where users get to flag what they see as being problem content and at the same time comment on what they consider to be good. The idea is to work on a bottom-up approach where the good material floats forward. There are plans to add a forum, for example.
Also, an aim with the architecture is to create cross-referencing systems that let people see related content. A similar aim in the video blogging community that I have written about in the post hammering vlogs. Jacobs described how the POOL producers had contacted a couple of people who had submitted works, with suggested alterations due to sensitive issues in these pieces. A subtle form of gatekeeping compared to pulling the content off all together.
In fact what I find interesting is the relationship the POOL is setting up with ABC prosumers through specific call outs. People submitting content can get feedback on their work from experienced media producers. From a teirtary education perspective this is where the POOL offers something different, providing a link between the ABC and students/teachers engaged in media training. In the past the ABC as public broadcaster and university media departments generally operate in islolation from each other, apart from traditional work placements. Having the potential to develop dialogue between professional media producers and students around content and social media offers a more level situation for both parties to learn from each other.
The other thing I picked up on is the way the call outs are run to get the public interested in contributing content. Jacobs was reluctant to call these ‘comptetitions’ and I agree with him when you see the way this term has been used and applied by a number of social media sites to generate content and solicit traffic . I also see the competition idea relating too much with the big brother/pop idol mentality of TV where there is always a loser and a winner. I think the idea of there being a best work in a user-generated environment dissolves to a large degree, with the focus shifting to what is relevant for the user and what they are interested in specifically. This goes against the YouTube or Google search process of whatever has the most contact with users rises to the top.
Also, the project ‘call outs’ on the POOL in most cases are targeted around specific ABC programs with the idea that they may generate content for those programs. Like ‘My Street’ for example, the POOL call out and the Radio National program ‘Street Stories‘. Even though this is a radio program the POOL decided to run with all types of rich media in response to these call outs, rather than just audio in this example. I was interested to know whether a photo, writing or a video submitted to this call out was taken up for adaption in some way by the Street Stories producers, as there is the potential to uncover all sorts of stories when a program brief is opened up to the public. There is so many successful examples of user-generated content being driven around very specific constrained briefs. i.e squared circle on flickr.
Another idea is whether the content uploaded around this theme/callout could be curated into other types of public media. For example a short series of videos for ABC 2; A photo gallery of images that shifts to the Street Stories website making a direct connection between the POOL and the Radio National program. In an online environment there are many ways to look at what might constitute public broadcasting and direct publishing. Finally, what might eventuate is scenarios where the public come up with program ideas in reverse. Like what has been happening on open source radio.
Michael Dieter gave a guest lecture in Networked Media this week on Social Networking. These are my notes and perspective. He was quick to point out how the concept of “networked individualism …hyper-individualism” seems to become the precedent - a centric, narcissitic approach that contradicts the community potential of social software. His image of a friends wheel off Facebook was a good visual example of this concept. The MySpace celebrity sites Tila Tequila and Jeremy Jackson also provided prime examples. It was intriguing to hear that MySpace paid Tila to come across from Friendster and bring here 40,000 odd network. Overall, a concept that filtered through from Manuel Castells trilogy of books on ‘Network Societies’.
Also, he debunked the idea that websites like Facebook and MySpace actually provide young people with a free space to engage with peers without an authoritative figure in the background. Instead these spaces become places that he described as being governed by “corporate surveillance”, where a key economic objective is the monitoring of users personal information and purchasing habits for marketing purposes. This is the selling and distribution of this information to third party operatives. Facebook Beacon is an example that uses specific documentation in UGC content as a means to promote ‘Behavioural Forward Advertising’- Behavioural targeting (wikipedia). A confronting interview by 60 minutes with the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg on this development. The distribution of private content in this context to friends networks is used for economic gain.
He also touched on the historical development of Social Network Sites based on the article danah boyd and Nicole Ellison, ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship’.
Aesthetics in terms of design where also covered with the ironic note of PCWorld voting MySpace as the worst design on the Internet in 2006. MySpace in comparison to the early Friendster website opened up the HTML and CSS for users to customise which caused a proliferation of competing and fashionable design responses amongst users. A notion he demonstrated in the MySpace celebrity examples above.
A current key figure in terms of research on the social networking field is Danah Boyd who is in the process of completing her PhD at Berkeley. Note, Boyd also acts as a commercial consultant to Yahoo.
Fred Scharman a MA post-graduate produced a critique on Boyd’s perspective in the essay, You Must be Logged in to Do That!: MySpace and Control. I could not help noting that key figures researching and providing valid critique on social networking are post-graduate students.
Dieter finished the presentation with a reference to the Greg Elmer book Profiling Machines: Mapping the Personal Information Economy which critically examines for example, the mythical notion that contributing UCG is a voluntary process that is not constantly being monitored.
A Comedy Central video (February 15, 2006) ‘Trendspotting, Social networking sites are loaded with sexual predators; more importantly they’re loaded with sexual prey’, by Demetri Martin provides an amusing perspective.
An extensive Snurblog post that examines social networking aspects of Ning and Facebook.
So in essence, Facebook’s enforced flattening of the complexities of social relationships into a binary yes/no choice dilutes the salience of its social network to the point of uselessness…And indeed, I guess, ultimately that’s what it is: a vortex, a maelstrom, a sinkhole - an insidious system for luring as many users as possible into taking up Facebook membership, for ensnaring their data trails, and for monetising their online activities.
Additional resource: Axel Bruns - Who controls the means of produsage?
I have got most of the clips into the ‘Glasshouse Birdman’ prototype and are now starting to look at how the categories and tags work in terms of how I would like the user to engage with the themes that have emerged in the content. I realised that clips could be kept in separate categories by controlling cross-overs with tag names, but sometimes a clip has something to offer in other categories. For example, giving a clip a tag name that features strongly in another category brings all those clips from that category across with it into the original category that has been selected. Often from my perspective this makes the theme to random if this is not the desired effect. One way around this within this interface design is to post the same clip twice with the same title but in a different category and with a different tag name.
category = birdman; tag = animal lover; clip title = big brown snake
category = feeding; tag = aviary; clip title = big brown snake
This means clips can be repeated to appear elsewhere while still having some control over themes. In a hidden kind of way clips that seemed more important that others could be repeated to appear in a number of places. Repetition becomes a feature of the narrative structure.
http://www.blogherald.com/2008/04/09/flickr-gets-video-but-just-for-90-seconds/
Flickr has launched its long awaited video feature, and it’s an interesting addition. First of all, all videos are limited to 90 seconds, and secondly, only pro users can upload videos (everyone can view and embed them though). Why is that?
wikipedia participatory video definition:
Participatory Video (PV) is a set of techniques to involve a group or community in shaping and creating their own film. The idea behind this is that making a video is easy and accessible, and is a great way of bringing people together to explore issues, voice concerns or simply to be creative and tell stories. It is therefore primarily about process, though high quality and accessible films (products) can be created using these methods if that is a desired outcome. This process can be very empowering, enabling a group or community to take their own action to solve their own problems, and also to communicate their needs and ideas to decision-makers and/or other groups and communities. As such, PV can be a highly effective tool to engage and mobilise marginalised people, and to help them to implement their own forms of sustainable development based on local needs.