So how useful is the internet in finding out more information about a diagnosis or managing an existing illness? Entering the search term Cancer immediatetly brings up a result from Wikipedia, which gives readers a comprehensive user generated summary of the disease. Google also lists The American Cancer Institute, these results are generally too broad and not local enough to consider as a useful site. When entering the search term Cancer Australia, the search brings up a more relevant list including Cancer Australia which is a government agency that provides the public with information on support and about the disease and the most reputable and well known Cancer charity, The Cancer Council. The list is followed by organisations that deal with more specific types of cancer such as breast cancer and prostate cancer.
I would narrow my selecion to include the sites that have easily accessible web 2.0 applications and social networking capacities such as twitter and facebook, so I can recieve regular updates in regards to developments or socia/supportl activities taking place and ones recomended by medical proffessionals and health authorities which for the large part has been the largest domain of information available on the internet to date. These are reffered to as intermediary sites, where medical middlemen offer to provide users with information. The Cancer Council and Cancer Australia websites are examples of these. These sites often offer the opportunity for its users to become part of a community and often encourage incoorporating usage of the site on a day to day basis. These are individualised according to the users requirements, thus providing a different and unique experience for all it’s users.
However, power is shiftting away from these intermediaries as the trend towards Apomediation increases. “Apomediation is a new socio-technological term that was coined to avoid the term “Web 2.0” in the scholarly debate [16,17]. It characterizes the “third way” for users to identify trustworthy and credible information and services.” (Eysenbach, 2008)
“for example shared bookmarking tools such as CiteULike, Connotea or WebCite, where people receive pointers to recently published relevant literature based on what others with a similar profile and interests have cited or bookmarked.”(Eysenbach, 2008)
Web 2.0 applications such as Google Health allow users to monitor and assess their progress and create health records, I find that outside of its ability to provide users with a way of monitoring their own health and creating records it doesn’t actually provide much information about the illness, although it gives an option to upload useful sites which you can refer to from this page.
I tried to create an account with Health Vault, again the application caters for users in the UK and America and I was unable to sign up with them.
The site Patients like me is specifically a social media application much like facebook, but designed specifically for networking with patients whom have the same disease.
Eysenbach, 2008, Medicine 2.0: Social Networking, Collaboration, Participation, Apomediation, and Openness http://www.jmir.org/2008/3/e22/
Monday, October 11, 2010
Dating, Intimacy, Sexuality and Online Culture
The medium of New Media utilised to conduct Cyber Sex involves varying levels of intimacy and risk. There are many ways that people can engage in Cyber Sex, including, Skype, facbook, dating sites, dicussion forums and mobile phones, each involves their own code of agreed ethics between the two parties in order for both parties to remain engaged. Many of these involve negotiating power, for example there is often a requisite for mutual trust, or confidentiality. These vary according to the rules that both parties establish, either informally or formally much like a real relationship, the process involves negotiation.
The most significant factor determining whether a sexual encounter on the internet can be construed as cheating, depends on the boundaries and rules set within the existing relationship. How committed you are to the idea of a formal monogamous relationship would probably determine the likelihood of the participant to engage in flirting and cybersex in the first place, although in an open relationship these rules may vary and loyalty may be expressed in different forms. Is it cheating of your partner approves of you engaging in online flirting?
This process of negotiation and self disclosure is important as there is an aspect of permanency in interactions on the internet, there is a space on the net where written words or photographic material used in erotic situations are etched there permanently and can later mulled over, or used against the participant, the intimate can be made very public very quickly. In many cases the less formal a liason is on the internet, the more confidentiality is needed in order for particpation to be an equal distribution of power. Therefore means of concealing identity is important and illustrates why role play, sexual or otherwise is so popular on the internet.
Different mediums of communication involve different levels of control over the users identity , these are often determined via the medium chosen to enage in the activity. The identity projected by the user and the level of authenticy probably also
determines whether online behaviour can be construed as cheating. Furthermore, the way particpants choose to represent themselves again ties in to levels of trust and power. There is also the issue of the “real” identity, as opposed to the “cyber” indentity. In many sense sexual interactions over the internet are conducted with the particpants “cyber” identity andoften fantasy and role playing is a central part of the interaction.
The reality of online encounters is that it can be difficult to gage whether chemistry will manifest from web page to real life, so often many elements of the encounter will remain only appropriate online, they may not translate very well to real life situations. Which highlights one of the reasons why encounters online are often brief and varied, monogamy in the cyber realm is probably virtually impossible as participants are not able to to make choices based on tactile experiences.
The sex and dating industry is the most profitable industry on the internet. Due to the high demand of such services, Economy naturally ties into things like selection/identity and power.
Pascoes article describes how often sexual liasons in Cyber Space occur in sites which are not specifically designed for Cyber Sex, but there is often a process of being accepted into a community that memebers often have to undergo before courting or dating is considered acceptable amongst peers. There are also other niches and groups that cater to specific demographics according to age, sexual preferences and race.
The most significant factor determining whether a sexual encounter on the internet can be construed as cheating, depends on the boundaries and rules set within the existing relationship. How committed you are to the idea of a formal monogamous relationship would probably determine the likelihood of the participant to engage in flirting and cybersex in the first place, although in an open relationship these rules may vary and loyalty may be expressed in different forms. Is it cheating of your partner approves of you engaging in online flirting?
This process of negotiation and self disclosure is important as there is an aspect of permanency in interactions on the internet, there is a space on the net where written words or photographic material used in erotic situations are etched there permanently and can later mulled over, or used against the participant, the intimate can be made very public very quickly. In many cases the less formal a liason is on the internet, the more confidentiality is needed in order for particpation to be an equal distribution of power. Therefore means of concealing identity is important and illustrates why role play, sexual or otherwise is so popular on the internet.
Different mediums of communication involve different levels of control over the users identity , these are often determined via the medium chosen to enage in the activity. The identity projected by the user and the level of authenticy probably also
determines whether online behaviour can be construed as cheating. Furthermore, the way particpants choose to represent themselves again ties in to levels of trust and power. There is also the issue of the “real” identity, as opposed to the “cyber” indentity. In many sense sexual interactions over the internet are conducted with the particpants “cyber” identity andoften fantasy and role playing is a central part of the interaction.
The reality of online encounters is that it can be difficult to gage whether chemistry will manifest from web page to real life, so often many elements of the encounter will remain only appropriate online, they may not translate very well to real life situations. Which highlights one of the reasons why encounters online are often brief and varied, monogamy in the cyber realm is probably virtually impossible as participants are not able to to make choices based on tactile experiences.
The sex and dating industry is the most profitable industry on the internet. Due to the high demand of such services, Economy naturally ties into things like selection/identity and power.
Pascoes article describes how often sexual liasons in Cyber Space occur in sites which are not specifically designed for Cyber Sex, but there is often a process of being accepted into a community that memebers often have to undergo before courting or dating is considered acceptable amongst peers. There are also other niches and groups that cater to specific demographics according to age, sexual preferences and race.
Social Media, Web Technologies and The Political Process
Political processes such as election, policy, debate and media coverage are becoming increasingly dependent upon the use on Internet-mediated activities, so to are the outcomes of campaigning changing the democratic process. The dissemination of ideas and its communicators are now more varied and diverse and changing the way its citizens are engaging and responding to the political process.
Consumption of information and communication distribution in its various mediums has always had an important role in civilsation and everyday life. Accessibility to and the ability to engage in the dialogues found within these texts have largely been determined by factors such as literacy, education and class. Members from most demographics of Australian society are able to participate in an interactive political dialogue. In Australia, internet usage is comparably higher than most other countries with approximately 72% of Australian households having access to the internet and broadband was accessed by 62% of all households. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008-09) This trend is prevalent in first world nations.
Nagourney, (New York Times, 2009) explores how the Obama campaign illustrates the instantaneous nature of Information and communication and the continual stream of political stimuli, that can be accessed by voters and politicians and how political dialogue is becoming more accessible to the masses. “The changes go beyond what Mr. Obama did and reflect a cultural shift in voters, producing an audience that is at once better informed, more skeptical and, from reading blogs, sometimes trafficking in rumours or suspect information. As a result, this new electorate tends to be more questioning of what it is told by campaigns and often uses the Web to do its own fact-checking.”
Democracy in politics has changed, now a true democracy relies on technological literacy and access to a computer. Power is a knowledge based phenomena, with such high levels of technological accessibility and literacy in Australia, (NCSS, 2009) Politics is imbricated into the everyday experience of the internet by those who document, communicate and participate in its processes and forms these are largely driven by public intellectuals and journalists but act to encourage participation by all its citizens (Fellows, 2010) away from the traditional mainstream media and something new is emerging (Coombs, 2009) and it is having a siginificant effect on governance and the outcomes of election campaigns.
As mentioned by Mike Kent in the Net102: Politics and Participatory Culture lecture, (Kent, 2010) By utilising Social Media, users in one sense are able to gain more control over public perception and representation in the media as they are able to provide primary statements, make these available to their public and control their social identity to a greater degree and the technology is more accessible and affordable then regular media campaigns. During the Australian 2010 federal election, Twitter and facebook were actively used by both major parties and then neglected afterwards.It is interesting to note that whilst the major parties surely have a budget for continual engagement in these technologies it seems to be the domain of the smaller parties such as the Greens and campaigners such as GetUp (Coombs, A. 2009) who continue to have a strong day to day internet presence, often operating at a grass roots level, relying on community support. Similar movements in the major parties does not occur to the same degree as they tend not to engage one on one with their audiences the way these groups do (Kent, 2010)
This distance or lack of engagement by the major parties in Australia with this technology on a day to day basis may also have something to do with the way power is traditionally constructed, John Fiske, (1992) marks distance as an important signifier of high and low culture/stations or dialogue and asserts that such distance encourages reverence and respect for text separate from the mundanities of everyday life as there is no distancing in the culture of everyday life. So once this meet and greet stage is over, it's back to formalities, hard nosed policy making and debate. Whilst technology's promise of greater transparency and communication is alluring to audience members, it doesn't actually get the real job of running the country done.
Contrasting this perspective of power, it is interesting to note that both the Obama campaign 2008 (Nagourney, 2008) and the Greens through their affiliation with GetUp and one to one ground work via twitter accounts (Coombs, 2009, Herrick 2010) had a consistent internet presence and gained significantly much of their momentum from online campaigning (Coombs, 2008, Nagourney 2008) perhaps indicating a shift in the way power is constructed. The Greens, not having the same media resources as the main parties, meant that having a strong online presence was an important campaign strategy, enabling them to reach out to untapped audiences. Campaigners utilising ICT technologies in this way are able to in a sense humanise elections, provide audiences with familiarity and accessibility and make its members feel as though they are part of a democratic process.
The internet has given regular citizens the opportunity to engage in the election process more effectively and political bodies the power to control their image and engage with their public more readily. However, the internet possesses similar processes of construction of power and culture. The utilisation of ICT technology in political campaigning has meant that Politicians are no longer at the mercy of the political leanings of journalists as they are able to provide their own articles, blogs and media releases, often instantaneously. The success of the Greens campaign and GetUp, in 2010, illustrates how official election coverage, held by mainstream media providers is becoming less centralised as the cost of producing, distributing multimedia messages via internet is becoming more affordable way of reaching the masses. The shift away from this type of monopolisation of information has forced the established television and print media to rethink their role and now there is clear interaction between television and Web 2.0 or ICT technologies. Traditionally these avenues of mass communication production available to an elite few, are now available to smaller groups and institutions previously underrepresented in the media.
References
Berger, A. (1995) Cultural Criticisms, A Primer of Key Concepts, Foundations of Popular Culture,Volume 4,
Adams, D. (2010) The twitter election. Or is it? ZDNet – Software – News
http://www.zdnet.com.au/the-twitter-election-or-is-it-339304662.htm Accessed 03/10/2010
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2008-2009) (Retrieved 3rd October. 2010) 8146.0 -
Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8146.0
Coombs, A (2009), How Cyber-Activism Changed the World,
From Griffith REVIEW Edition 24: Participation Society, Griffith University & the author.
Fellows, D. (2010), Could Twitter of Changed the Election, Now U See, from
http://www.nowuc.com.au/2010/10/09/could-twitter-have-changed-the-election
Fiske, J. (1992). Cultural Studies and the Culture of Everyday Life. In Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, & Paula A Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 154-173). New York: Routlede.
Flew, T. (2007). Not Yet the Internet Election: Online Media, Political Commentary and the 2007 Australian Federal Election. Media International Australia. 126.5-13. In
Herrick, C. (02/098/2010) Federal Election 2010, The Australian Greens Social Networking Strategy from http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/355348/federal_election_2010_australian_
greens_social_networking_strategy/
Kent, M, (2010). Net102: Politics and Participatory Culture lecture, Curtin University ilecture
Media Literacy, (2009) (Retrieved 5th October, 2010) A Position Statement of National Council for the Social Studies, from http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/medialiteracy
Nagourney, A. (November 4, 2008), The ‘08 Campaign: Sea Change for Politics as We Know It, New York Times, 2009-01-19.
Consumption of information and communication distribution in its various mediums has always had an important role in civilsation and everyday life. Accessibility to and the ability to engage in the dialogues found within these texts have largely been determined by factors such as literacy, education and class. Members from most demographics of Australian society are able to participate in an interactive political dialogue. In Australia, internet usage is comparably higher than most other countries with approximately 72% of Australian households having access to the internet and broadband was accessed by 62% of all households. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008-09) This trend is prevalent in first world nations.
Nagourney, (New York Times, 2009) explores how the Obama campaign illustrates the instantaneous nature of Information and communication and the continual stream of political stimuli, that can be accessed by voters and politicians and how political dialogue is becoming more accessible to the masses. “The changes go beyond what Mr. Obama did and reflect a cultural shift in voters, producing an audience that is at once better informed, more skeptical and, from reading blogs, sometimes trafficking in rumours or suspect information. As a result, this new electorate tends to be more questioning of what it is told by campaigns and often uses the Web to do its own fact-checking.”
Democracy in politics has changed, now a true democracy relies on technological literacy and access to a computer. Power is a knowledge based phenomena, with such high levels of technological accessibility and literacy in Australia, (NCSS, 2009) Politics is imbricated into the everyday experience of the internet by those who document, communicate and participate in its processes and forms these are largely driven by public intellectuals and journalists but act to encourage participation by all its citizens (Fellows, 2010) away from the traditional mainstream media and something new is emerging (Coombs, 2009) and it is having a siginificant effect on governance and the outcomes of election campaigns.
As mentioned by Mike Kent in the Net102: Politics and Participatory Culture lecture, (Kent, 2010) By utilising Social Media, users in one sense are able to gain more control over public perception and representation in the media as they are able to provide primary statements, make these available to their public and control their social identity to a greater degree and the technology is more accessible and affordable then regular media campaigns. During the Australian 2010 federal election, Twitter and facebook were actively used by both major parties and then neglected afterwards.It is interesting to note that whilst the major parties surely have a budget for continual engagement in these technologies it seems to be the domain of the smaller parties such as the Greens and campaigners such as GetUp (Coombs, A. 2009) who continue to have a strong day to day internet presence, often operating at a grass roots level, relying on community support. Similar movements in the major parties does not occur to the same degree as they tend not to engage one on one with their audiences the way these groups do (Kent, 2010)
This distance or lack of engagement by the major parties in Australia with this technology on a day to day basis may also have something to do with the way power is traditionally constructed, John Fiske, (1992) marks distance as an important signifier of high and low culture/stations or dialogue and asserts that such distance encourages reverence and respect for text separate from the mundanities of everyday life as there is no distancing in the culture of everyday life. So once this meet and greet stage is over, it's back to formalities, hard nosed policy making and debate. Whilst technology's promise of greater transparency and communication is alluring to audience members, it doesn't actually get the real job of running the country done.
Contrasting this perspective of power, it is interesting to note that both the Obama campaign 2008 (Nagourney, 2008) and the Greens through their affiliation with GetUp and one to one ground work via twitter accounts (Coombs, 2009, Herrick 2010) had a consistent internet presence and gained significantly much of their momentum from online campaigning (Coombs, 2008, Nagourney 2008) perhaps indicating a shift in the way power is constructed. The Greens, not having the same media resources as the main parties, meant that having a strong online presence was an important campaign strategy, enabling them to reach out to untapped audiences. Campaigners utilising ICT technologies in this way are able to in a sense humanise elections, provide audiences with familiarity and accessibility and make its members feel as though they are part of a democratic process.
The internet has given regular citizens the opportunity to engage in the election process more effectively and political bodies the power to control their image and engage with their public more readily. However, the internet possesses similar processes of construction of power and culture. The utilisation of ICT technology in political campaigning has meant that Politicians are no longer at the mercy of the political leanings of journalists as they are able to provide their own articles, blogs and media releases, often instantaneously. The success of the Greens campaign and GetUp, in 2010, illustrates how official election coverage, held by mainstream media providers is becoming less centralised as the cost of producing, distributing multimedia messages via internet is becoming more affordable way of reaching the masses. The shift away from this type of monopolisation of information has forced the established television and print media to rethink their role and now there is clear interaction between television and Web 2.0 or ICT technologies. Traditionally these avenues of mass communication production available to an elite few, are now available to smaller groups and institutions previously underrepresented in the media.
References
Berger, A. (1995) Cultural Criticisms, A Primer of Key Concepts, Foundations of Popular Culture,Volume 4,
Adams, D. (2010) The twitter election. Or is it? ZDNet – Software – News
http://www.zdnet.com.au/the-twitter-election-or-is-it-339304662.htm Accessed 03/10/2010
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2008-2009) (Retrieved 3rd October. 2010) 8146.0 -
Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8146.0
Coombs, A (2009), How Cyber-Activism Changed the World,
From Griffith REVIEW Edition 24: Participation Society, Griffith University & the author.
Fellows, D. (2010), Could Twitter of Changed the Election, Now U See, from
http://www.nowuc.com.au/2010/10/09/could-twitter-have-changed-the-election
Fiske, J. (1992). Cultural Studies and the Culture of Everyday Life. In Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, & Paula A Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 154-173). New York: Routlede.
Flew, T. (2007). Not Yet the Internet Election: Online Media, Political Commentary and the 2007 Australian Federal Election. Media International Australia. 126.5-13. In
Herrick, C. (02/098/2010) Federal Election 2010, The Australian Greens Social Networking Strategy from http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/355348/federal_election_2010_australian_
greens_social_networking_strategy/
Kent, M, (2010). Net102: Politics and Participatory Culture lecture, Curtin University ilecture
Media Literacy, (2009) (Retrieved 5th October, 2010) A Position Statement of National Council for the Social Studies, from http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/medialiteracy
Nagourney, A. (November 4, 2008), The ‘08 Campaign: Sea Change for Politics as We Know It, New York Times, 2009-01-19.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)