We watched the cult hit "Bladerunner" in class last week, looking at in context of the way technology advances our society and scares us at the same time.
It was my first time to see the movie, set in a futuristic urban setting where Replicants -- human-like robots -- are a threat to the humans who remain on earth. Most humans, it appears, have left the smoldering remains of the earth to live in space colonies. Harrison Ford plays a bladerunner, a specially trained cop who is on the hunt for some recently escaped replicants.
The whole time I was watching the film, I was wondering if Ford himself was a replicant: his obsession with old photos, his efficiency, the way the other officers seemed to be in on some secret. I Googled it later that week, and found I was not alone in this theory.
The underlying message of this bit of chicanery? No matter how little we trust the technology we create ... we're still the ones pulling the strings.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
The 'ad' advantage
So the online models of business are changing.
The New York Times has shut down its member-based, pay-only sections, looking to ad revenue to generate that income instead of online readers. Meanwhile, Spiral Frog is giving away music if you'll watch a 60-second advertisement.
What does this mean for online media? My money is on this being a trend. Advertising already underwrites television content and many publications. I've always been told, in fact, that newspapers and magazines make all of their money on advertising; that subscriptions merely pay for the paper they're printed on.
However, there is a new, competing trend in TV: premium content, ad-free, for an upcharge. And looking at the success of things like TiVo, HBO, and TV shows on DVD, I'd say (anecdotally, at least) that people are willing to pay for the convenience of being ad-free. So why this discrepancy, i.e., TV moving away from the ad-based model and online media moving toward it?
One thing, I imagine, is the current perception that online information should be free. It's not seen as entertainment; it's seen as a resource. While people go online to entertain themselves, they regard it as something different than watching a movie or sitcom for relaxation. However, if advertisers get smart -- and start targeting the ads properly -- the line between advertising and entertainment will continue to blur. A quick search on YouTube showed hundreds of advertisments that people actively search for -- and watch. Why do people watch the SuperBowl just for the ads? Because they're enjoyable ads. If Spiral Frog or the NYT can sell and carry ads (video or static) for online media, consumers, media companies, and businesses will have a winning model.
The New York Times has shut down its member-based, pay-only sections, looking to ad revenue to generate that income instead of online readers. Meanwhile, Spiral Frog is giving away music if you'll watch a 60-second advertisement.
What does this mean for online media? My money is on this being a trend. Advertising already underwrites television content and many publications. I've always been told, in fact, that newspapers and magazines make all of their money on advertising; that subscriptions merely pay for the paper they're printed on.
However, there is a new, competing trend in TV: premium content, ad-free, for an upcharge. And looking at the success of things like TiVo, HBO, and TV shows on DVD, I'd say (anecdotally, at least) that people are willing to pay for the convenience of being ad-free. So why this discrepancy, i.e., TV moving away from the ad-based model and online media moving toward it?
One thing, I imagine, is the current perception that online information should be free. It's not seen as entertainment; it's seen as a resource. While people go online to entertain themselves, they regard it as something different than watching a movie or sitcom for relaxation. However, if advertisers get smart -- and start targeting the ads properly -- the line between advertising and entertainment will continue to blur. A quick search on YouTube showed hundreds of advertisments that people actively search for -- and watch. Why do people watch the SuperBowl just for the ads? Because they're enjoyable ads. If Spiral Frog or the NYT can sell and carry ads (video or static) for online media, consumers, media companies, and businesses will have a winning model.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Wiki-Watch Dos
And ... Wikipedia wins!
My fake Diane Keaton entry was changed in less than a week. Score one for the Wikipedia editing system. (And I confess: I feel much better...)
My fake Diane Keaton entry was changed in less than a week. Score one for the Wikipedia editing system. (And I confess: I feel much better...)
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Wiki-watch One
It's Wednesday, 10:36 p.m. So far, Diane Keaton is still a paralegal, per Wikipedia. The watch continues ...
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Ch-ch-ch-changes
Our latest assignment for class was to test the reliability of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Dr. G has asked us to intentionally insert false information into a Wikipedia profile of a Hollywood celebrity or a film. Then, we're to track it and see how long it takes before someone edits out the false information.
The idea is to test how effective the Wikipedia editing system is. We all know to take information there with a grain of salt, but there are people who, in fact, put in false information, either maliciously (as our class is doing) or through a misguided belief in what they're posting. The administration of Wikipedia claims to have editors always checking for incorrect information, and we're out to test how quickly and accurately that happens.
So, while I feel a little guilty about it -- intentionally reporting false information seems very unethical to me -- I added a false item to Diane Keaton's Wikipedia entry.
The original entry was: In addition to acting, she is also a photographer, real estate developer, and occasional singer.
My edit was: In addition to acting, she is also a photographer, real estate developer, paralegal, and occasional singer.
Let's see how long it takes for someone to change it -- or if it gets caught at all.
I am assuaging my guilt over misleading people by comforting myself that I said something nice about her. And if it isn't fixed in a week, I'll change it back myself.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Safe? Of course it's safe -- it's online!
In class tonight, we had two presentations -- one on online dating and one about myspace -- that brought the issue of safety on the Web to the forefront. This also follows Dr. Greenberg's earlier concerns about family photos that were posted on Flickr.
How safe, she asked us, was it to show images of your kids online? Could someone see a photo, determine where the family lived, and target them for a scam or violent crime?
It's certainly possible -- even likely -- I would argue. If someone called me and asked for my name, hometown, zip code, friends' names, hobbies, photos of my family, education level, or workplace, I would immediately suspect either a scam or open identity theft. Yet, people feel perfectly free to post all this information online for the taking -- for anyone to see. Is our society so disconnected we feel this uncontrollable urge to tell everyone out there every little detail about us? Or are we just very trusting?
There's also the issue of predation, which has sparked lawsuits against online dating sites and myspace. MSNBC ran a story about a girl right up the road in Austin. (You can read it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13437619/)
In the meantime, even though we've been asked to put in photos with most of our blog entries, I'm sticking with anonymous-looking images like this one. Guess which one's me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)