Response to the Class Media Fast

I didn’t do the fast. But I think my observations about how the fast was brought up and how some carried it out could add to this discussion.

The call to fast

I heard about the call for a media fast obliquely—it was mentioned by some people in my Google+ feed, and it wasn’t until class that I realized this was something initiated by a class member and that he wanted all to participate. Even after trying to find it, I never read the original post.

I think this mirrors how information is disseminated on the Internet: someone posts something, and then people who think it’s interesting take it up, and people enter the conversation at all points. This means that a lot can go on that some people will never hear about. That stands to reason, but this illustrated it for me—I’m in the same class as this person, and look at Google+ nearly every day, yet I missed (and would have completely missed) his call to action. Who you know, and who you follow, matters.

How I responded to the call for a media fast

After I heard about the media fast in class, I wasn’t that interested in doing it. It came as a request from an equal, and that gave me to option to not participate. And it turns out that I didn’t.

The idea of elective participation is also integral to the Internet—people participate in things they want to do. This elective participation naturally leads to specialized groups forming, and people finding and conversing with people with an interest similar to theirs.

It also highlights the de-centralized nature of Internet interaction: in a traditional college class, assignments are handed down from a central authority (professor) and students do it. The model is simple, and reinforced with the grading system—the return for completing the assignments in the way the professor expects is a grade that, added with other grades for classes outlined by the central authority of the college, becomes a diploma.

What I’ve noticed in others’ reports of their media fasts

Defensiveness—Some people seemed defensive about their media use. This seems to indicate that there is social bias against it.

Relief—When some came to the conclusion that they couldn’t live without media, there seemed to be a note of relief. Maybe because they found legitimate reasons to use media, and are able to refute the social bias that made them feel defensive to begin with.

Definition of media—there were differing definitions of what “media” is. Technically, almost anything can fall under “media,” but the most common definition included the Internet and electronics. I wonder why those are put under such scrutiny and general social disdain. Is it because these things are new?

My takeaways

I came away from the media fast weekend wanting to monitor and reform my interactions with media. I also realized I need to define what kind of media I think is most necessary to limit (phones? Any computer work, or just the Internet?), and if there are some I want to use more (physical books, playing instruments in person).

How much do I value being the first person to know that something has happened?

Do I need to check email as many times as I do a day?

What other sources of entertainment can I actively pursue (physically active and actively making it happen) instead of passively consuming information off the Internet?

Transmedia Storytelling

I recently remembered that a little while back someone asking for more information about transmedia. I'll try to give a basic overview of what is has been here. Since this type of storytelling is still in the exploratory stages (but what isn't on the Internet?), be aware that there's still a lot to explore. This blog post can be a starting point for you.

Root words can be an informative way to start: "trans"=across, "media"="means of conveying something" or "system of communication, information, or entertainment" (thank you, m-w.com). So transmedia storytelling is telling a story using different means of communication. Examples of how this has been done will probably be more helpful than an abstract definition.

Examples of Transmedia Storytelling

Collapsus.com
This is a documentary-style transmedia story about several young adults during a major breakdown of energy sources in the world. The audience is young adults, and the purpose is to raise awareness about alternative energy. The user experience includes a cool interface with three panels, 1-with a game about energy sources that updates 2-as you watch the video in the middle panel and 3-a news story that broadcasts as the video in the middle progresses.

The Book of Jer3miah
This was a project BYU professors (including Jeff Parkin, who is going to talk to our class this week and gave this TED talk) put together. It has the core of a narrative through webisodes. Then they created a website for the bad guys in the show, called "The Davenport Papers" where they would plant information about what was going on on their side of the story.

The Beast
This was an advertisement campaign for the movie A.I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(game)

WhySoSerious
This was an advertisement campaign for the Dark Knight. http://whysoserious.com/

Further Reading

"What Is Trans-Media Storytelling?"
This post has a list of other articles that discuss different aspects of transmedia storytelling.

"Transmedia Storytelling: What's the Alternative to Alternate Reality Games?"
The concluding idea of this article is "We need to stop creating more closed narratives and finite tales, and instead concentrate on fragmenting the stories we already have into a million pieces and sparking the imaginations of our audiences so they want to put them back together in the way that feels right to them."






Transmedia storytelling is about giving the audience ways to participate besides watching a screen. People have found different ways to make that happen, including weaving ARGs into the story that participants can then put together by connecting online with other followers of the story.

Media Fast

In class there was talk of having a media fast. These are my thoughts on the possible benefits of a fast and why you might approach such a venture. :)

Full Fast for Mindfulness
A media fast is a great way to reinstate mindfulness while using the media. In the book Net Smart, Rheingold champions mindfulness as the best way to make the Internet a useful tool. By fasting from the media, you can see more clearly what is a productive use of the Internet and what you could cut back on. Taking a step away can also give you perspective to help you decide how to proceed when you start using media again. A full fast can be useful in clearing your mind and breaking habits.

My roommate decided to do a Facebook fast because she would find herself turning to it whenever she was bored or had a spare moment. A cold turkey fast helped her break the habit of logging in all the time. 

Semi-fast for Perspective
Like doing a juice fast, you could decide what kinds of technology are necessary to make your life run reasonably smoothly (cell phone for calling, car for driving, online calendar to keep your commitments, email to stay current in your job), and then cut out everything else. Or you could set parameters on your interactions with different media, like a time limit or a priority list or something.

My family made a time limit for computer and TV use, and that made my sisters prioritize what they used it for. 

A semi-fast allows you to continue life as normal but still provides an opportunity to take a look at your habits and re-define your relationship with technology. Limiting or defining your use of media also lends itself to becoming a part of your lifestyle, whereas a full fast isn't really sustainable for a long period of time. 

I think the approach you take depends on what you want to accomplish with a media fast. 

Death Gone Digital (and other privacy issues)

I've noticed some people using Facebook status updates to tell quite personal information: anything from tirades about a friend or family member's behavior to proclamations of love to a fiance, from ultrasound pictures of the baby-to-come to the state of the wart on their second toe. These might not sound that bad to you, but it's likely you've winced or groaned at something personal someone has posted online (I'm thinking of Facebook).

But that's their deal, right? They can decide what they do or do not want on the internet, and they can pay the consequences for that, including being revealed as immature, ridiculous, or gossipy. That is, if the information is theirs alone. But often it isn't.

You can share a lot of information and media online, and often the only inhibition placed on you by the sites is the dialog box asking if you have the right to publish that information. You simply click "yes" and it's up. Pictures, personal information, videos of subjects who thought it wouldn't leave the room, even embarassing gushing of a parent on a teenager's Fb wall—all of it, if it is within the bounds of "decency," can legally and easily be published online.

Is a mourning family entitled to not have to tell anyone or console anyone else for a few hours, or should they tell everyone immediately?

How is that information to be prevented from finding its way to people not particularly wanted at the funeral?  Just some thoughts.

Review of Net Smart

I recently browsed a book about the Internet. My review:

Net Smart is an interesting take on the potential of the Internet. It is optimistic in its outlook of what we as humans can do together through the web. But Rheingold also points out that each person has the responsibility to participate and contribute to the online communities, because what people do on the internet and what they use it for now will influence how the web develops. That is, we can directly contribute to what’s available on the web as well as direct how the web will work in years to come. His approach to pulling readers out of passivity and offering them the driver’s seat is to help them understand the controls in front of them and how they can be purposeful about what they give their attention and participation to.

Rheingold starts with explaining that attention is powerful. When people who go online direct their attention purposefully, they take control of their situation.

Then Rheingold talks about how to filter the content online, from detecting good sources of information to finding new sources.

The next section is about how participation works as a driving force to funding and companies on the Internet.

Then Rheingold goes into different platforms that encourage collaboration. He optimistically remarks on all that can be achieved when many people come together to work on projects for the common good.

The next area is related to collaboration: the social networking functions of the web. 

Rheingold closes the book with several issues raised by the ways people interact on the Internet, such as copyright with remix culture, and how to respond to how kids are using the internet.

An interesting aspect of this book is that it’s old media—a printed book—offered to help ease the reader’s mind about new media. 

I particularly like the urgency to Rheingold’s message. We can change how the Internet works if we understand how participation and mindfulness affect more than ourselves. And understanding how to use the Internet to gain and share knowledge and build communities will put the power in our hands instead of a digitally literate elite. 

Interesting read, helpful to get a new view of the Internet and how it can work for good.

See my book review on Goodreads:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/409015986

Ads and Cookies

I don't like people to be able to Facebook stalk me, so I set my profile to "private." It also really bothers me when corporations dig around on the internet or through my digital interactions to get them a better chance of receiving my business. I can't set "private" on that, other than to block cookies, but that disables some services and functions of internet browsing (as far as I know...).

I was shopping around for auto insurance quotes a few months ago. After inputting my address (required field, so I entered the information—should I give in to what the corporation requires me to give them?), I was shocked to see that they knew exactly what cars my father owns, down to the make, model, and year. All I had to do was click on the one I wanted to insure, and it would give me a quote. This (or something similar) happened with three websites I went to for an insurance quote. Two of those companies had never had our business before. So how did they obtain that information, and why would they want it? Maybe the insurance companies thought it would encourage potential customers to complete the online quote process if they didn't have to know the make and model of their car off the top of their heads. How did the companies get that information? I don't know, but I DON'T like it.

On the other hand, I do like that I can customize the ads, for example, on Facebook, by clicking the "X" to tell them that's not something I'm interested in. I have seen a great decline in ads that could be shocking or offensive to me. And while it bothers me that stores keep track of what I buy, or my browser keeps track of the sites I visit and gears the ads to reflect that, I think it's the fact that "they" (who is "they," anyway?) could use or sell that information to steal my identity is what really bothers me. That is, the fact that that information can be taken and stored and used for others' ends bothers me more than the particular way the browser currently uses the information (to gear ads to what I might be interested in).

What should the tradeoff be between privacy of information and ease of service? Am I willing to block the cookies on my browser even if that means I can't participate in some things online? What is your balance, and what are your breaking points? Should those be legislated for corporations when they want to use the information to improve business?

ARGs: Blurring the Line between Reality and Fiction

Recently I heard about the project Jer3miah, which was a transmedia project created by a BYU class. In talking to some people about it, I found this TEDx talk by one of the professors for that class:

There are so many points I could comment on, but the ARG (alternate reality game) is particularly interesting to me. What happens if you give people the opportunity to interact with fictional universes beyond the game console or computer? Do the elements of the fictional universe become somehow real? For example, does the door the woman sees through her phone actually exist? If it makes her walk only through it if it's "open," yet she won't hit a door if she does try to walk through it, is it really a door?

I'm torn between fear of the unknown and excitement for the possibilities--can you imagine how engaging it would be to somehow participate in the story of your favorite book or TV show? Or how easy it could be to get children excited to read a book because it uses the universe in their favorite video game? How does this change how we tell stories and listen to them? What else could ARGs be used for?