valgjy

[valgjy]

Blogpost 8 (Goh Jing Yi, Valeria)

In the reading of “Reconfiguring Interactivity, Agency and Pleasure in the Education and Computer Games Debate” Pelletier uses Žižek’s concept of interpassivity to analyse educational play. She posits that there are four versions of Cyberspace, games as pain relievers, games as sensual temptations, games as replicas of non-virtual life and games as dramatic stages for reality construction. In the first version, games as pain relievers, she used Prensky’s line of argument and highlighted that the value in games in education is that they allow learners to get the pleasure of learning, pleasure that they enjoyed as children, which was taken away from them by the authority of formal education and training systems. The second version, games as sensual temptations, she highlights that it can result in learners losing their identity in the game as well as losing track of the learning objectives of the game as well. Pelletier then uses Becta’s stance, in opposition to Prensky’s, that it is only by renouncing pleasure, by stopping play, that gains can be made. In the third version, games as replicas of non-virtual life, she talks about Gee’s argument about how games encourage active learning by enabling players to develop projective identities through their control of an in-game avatar and that games create a space for learners to take risks but where real-world consequence are lowered. Lastly, in the fourth version, games as dramatic stages for reality construction, she highlights that games helps to gratify the desire to be passive as it allows learners to go through the stages of reality construction through following the objectives and rules of the game.

An interesting thought that came to mind was that in role playing games, players are allowed to create their avatar from scratch, and so do they create one as close to themselves as possible in terms of appearance, character and personality or would they rather create another completely different persona to their own, as such, engaging in ‘escapism’. As for myself, I have played the SIMs and I created the avatar as similar to myself as possible in real life whilst setting the game in how I would like my life to be in real life as well. I would say that such games do provide players with the chance to ‘escape’ reality by building their dream avatar as well as life in the SIMs. I feel that there’s nothing wrong with that as long as it provides the player with an outlet to let off some steam and create a different avatar to make themselves feel better (concept of game as pain relievers), as it could be seen as liberating to have somewhere to dump your unmet dreams and expectations too. Thus, I feel that games can be double edged sword that has it pros and cons to the learners and players depending on how they play and perceive the games to be.

[valgjy]

Blogpost 7 (Goh Jing Yi, Valeria)

Superapps

In Connie Chan’s reading on When One App Rules Them All: The Case of WeChat and Mobile in China where it highlights that WeChat is not only a messaging app, but it is also a portal, a platform and it could even be a mobile operating system, basically an all-in-one superapp. Chan argues that WeChat is not only catered to people in China and people outside of China should also notice it as she mentioned that WeChat shows what Facebook and other messaging apps could move towards, she also highlights that WeChat shows where the future of mobile commerce may lead to as well as how WeChat is an example of what a platform and a mobile portable is like. It is impressing to see that China is capable of creating a superapp that is catered to its large population where it has a smartphone penetration of 62%. Furthermore, it is amazing to see all that features in one app as it is really convenient as one would not need to create multiple apps for messaging, transport, food as well as shopping.

In Singapore, we can see how the Grab app is slowly trying to become an all-in-one app (excluding messaging but who knows, maybe eventually). Grab now has different features where it allows their users to use it for different purposes such as transport, delivery, food as well as shopping. Whilst it is not as impressive as China’s WeChat we can slowly see how Grab is trying to expand and offer more options and features for its users. I’m not sure if Grab will ever reach the same level of success as WeChat but it is definitely one of the few apps that is branching out and offering such features with more and more merchants and physical stores collaborating with grab and incorporating GrabPay into their system.

Furthermore, WeChat started off as a messaging app and Chan posits that it shows what Facebook and other messaging apps could move towards. Messaging apps that I’m familiar with is Whatsapp and Telegram but I’m not sure if they’ll ever create a superapp like WeChat as they don’t seem like they are attempting to do so. It may be possible for Whatsapp since its owned by Facebook which also owns Instagram so it might be easier for them to create a superapp out of these platforms that they already have. Not sure if they’ll turn out to be as successful as WeChat even if they tried since they already have an example to mimic off so hopefully Facebook is able to come out with a superapp that is as convenient and functional as WeChat.

[valgjy]

Blogpost 6 (Goh Jing Yi, Valeria)

The sharing economy

In Ravenelle’s reading on “What is the sharing economy?”, she highlights that the sharing economy often seen as a solution to many society ills including the ‘growing trend of inequality’. However, Ravenelle argues that the sharing economy is often thought to be driven by technological advancements which results in increasing social inequalities which differs from what the sharing economy is seen to be as a solution for such societal ills. Ravenelle highlights that even though the sharing economy is promoted as connecting and bringing people together, it may be seen as just a marketing ploy as she highlights that the sharing economy actually show a lack of interest in interaction between people rather than it was meant to do which was to promote human interaction.

Ravenelle also argued that the sharing economy tend to favour the rich or rather the more wealth off people has the capacity to take advantage of the benefits of the sharing economy and as a result increase their wealth which in turn leads to an increasing social inequality. I agree with her as this is an opportunity for the rich to get richer as they exploit the profitability of the sharing economy. An example that Ravenelle brought up was Airbnb, I am sure that the rich is not only able to own more properties but also own properties with better amenities and locations which in turn helps them to generate more revenue through the online rental platform. The rich is able to exploit this sharing economy to their advantage in a bid to increase their wealth which might encourage them to buy more properties to rent out on Airbnb due to the profitability of it. This shows that the rich will profit more and more out of the sharing economy while the poor do not have the resources to join in on it which then widens and worsens the social inequality.

However, I believe that even though the sharing economy does tend to favour the rich, people who are of lower social economic status do still reap the benefits of it albeit to a smaller extent. The sharing economy has opened up more jobs opportunities such as being an Uber driver which might be beneficial for those who are of lower social economic status. I do agree that she sharing economy do widen social inequality to a certain extent but I believe that it also promotes the bridging of that gap even though it is to a smaller extent.

[valgjy]

Participatory Culture

In the “Social Media as Participatory Culture” reading, participatory culture is explained to be frequently used for the creation of content with the involvement of the users, audiences and consumers. Examples given in the reading were the features of Wikipedia where users can edit an article simultaneously, posting content on Twitter as well as YouTube and Facebook.

Fuch disagrees with Jenkins definition of participatory culture as he felt that Jenkins failed to take participatory democracy into account. As such, Fuch argues that Jenkin’s definition of participatory culture ignores ownership, capitalism and class where it excludes the capitalistic perspective of big corporations like Facebook and Google.

An interesting question that popped up during tutorial was ‘If there were no returns (i.e. social, cultural, monetary) will there still be any participatory culture’? As we discussed that people join in this participatory culture to gain more popularity and fame which in turn sometimes lead to monetary gain on platforms like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. Some users participate willingly and do it for free due to their desire for dialogue with their favourite content creator. I think participatory culture would not grow if there’s no return involved in such circumstances as they have nothing to gain out of it.

Another point brought up during tutorial was whether retweeting was considered participation. I would say that it is considered participation to a certain extent as retweeting helps the tweet gain traction and attracts the attention of more people in turn helping to raise awareness on the issue. However, I feel some people do it for the sake of just doing it. Retweeting just brings out the same tweet over and over again rather than having new input and tweets from users on the issue which I feel diminishes participation. I also think that it depends on the relevancy of the issue to the person too. An example would be the Black Lives Matter movement where if a Singaporean retweet it, it would just be a show of support and there’s nothing much we do can other than spreading awareness on this issue and campaign. As compared to our political scene as seen from the 2020 General Election, retweets and tweets on the political scene in Singapore actually helped young voters like me make an informed decision on which party to vote and become more informed and involved in the process rather than just going with the flow.

[valgjy]

NM3205 Blogpost 4 (Goh Jing Yi, Valeria)

The Culture Industry

In Horkheimer and Adorner’s reading, it was highlighted that culture industry is increasingly becoming more commercialised as it becomes more intertwined with the economy. As a result, they argue that the creative freedom has been restricted in the media industry giving little room for creators to creatively share their art and content. In addition, they also mentioned that due to the increasingly capitalistic society in the world today, media culture has also shifted accordingly where creating art and content becomes profit-driven. This results in content creators and artists producing the same content that attracts views and peoples’ attention rather than making content that they truly love which in Horkheimer and Adorner’s words results in the culture industry being saturated with “sameness”. 

I agree with them to a certain extent as it is true that content creators like YouTubers do chase trends that attract views. An example would be that during the pandemic, more and more people jumped onto the bandwagon of playing ‘Among Us’ and started streaming this game on their YouTube channel as it is the most popular game then and it attracts people to watch their content. Furthermore, these content creators are often provided with plenty of sponsorship opportunities where they would then have to advertise it on their channel. Also, sometimes these YouTubers who promote such advertisements do it purely for the profit rather than providing a truthful review of the products. As such, I do agree with them that the industry does become overwhelmed with the same kind of content at times where providing entertainment does come with the motive of gaining a profit. Also, at the start of 2021, some of the YouTubers I watched (such as Alex Wassabi and LaurDIY) were too burnt out that they had to take some time off their platform to have a break and even reevaluate what the kind of content they want to produce going forward as they felt pressured to produce content people wanted rather than content they enjoy making.

However, I do not think that it is such a bad idea to provide people with the content that they want to watch. Content creators like YouTubers make money off of producing content on their platforms thus the higher the views, the more profit they would earn. I feel it is ultimately still up to the content creators themselves whether they want to create content that attract views or produce content that they enjoy. In my opinion, chasing trends is not the only way to gain a following on such platforms as not every YouTuber creates the same content. I would say that maybe only a minority actually creates the same content and even so I do not think that there is anything wrong with that. I feel there are still content creators who produce content that they are passionate in such as Victoria Raechel who makes videos on hamster care even though it is not deemed as trendy and popular. Also, I would say the media industry is too big to be saturated with “sameness” as there are still many people creating different content on different platforms.

[valgjy]

NM3205 Blogpost 3 (Goh Jing Yi, Valeria)

The Personalisation of Urban Spaces

In this reading by Ito, Okabe and Anderson, they go beyond the examination of mobile phones but also touched and mentioned the other portable devices that people inhabit, navigate and interface with urban environments. In this research, they looked into the “mobile kits” of young professionals by tracking their use of portable devices in order to understand more about how information and communication technologies (ICTs) mould people’s experience, urban space and their time.

I’m quite intrigued by their explanation on the managing presence in urban space and time. They highlighted three modes of presence namely cocoons, encampment and footprints. They also mentioned that these are technosocial ways of interacting with urban spaces that depend on a “stabilisation of technology, social practice, and infrastructural standards”.

The first mode is cocooning which provides a private space in urban areas. Cocooning provides a “personalised media environment that is attached to the person and not the physical space”. Portable media devices provide in a way an escape and solitude for people in public places. I can relate to cocooning as similar to others, I spend most of my time alone outside on my phone and other media devices in a bid to avoid conversations with other people as well as to block out conservations between other people. I really cannot imagine myself going out alone without my phone and AirPods especially when I’m travelling on the public transport as it is a means for me to kill time as well as a bubble for me to be comfortable in in public. 

The second mode is encampment where people choose the public places to bring their portable devices where they choose to spend their time at these specific places temporarily outside of their home and workplace. I would say that it is quite common amongst students including myself to camp at cafes and places like Starbucks to study where they bring along their phones, earphones, books and even their laptops to perhaps be more productive at their place of encampment. 

The next mode is sometimes linked to camping as footprinting can be part of the business models of camping places in a bid to attract loyal customers by offering loyalty cards to earn points as well as to capture their personal preferences as well. Due to COVID-19, contactless transactions have become a thing in our society and it is so convenient to just bring our phones along and have different loyalty and membership cards stored in our mobile phones through applications and sometimes even through the QR code. I am a big fan of footprinting in this case as it allows me to earn points, rewards and even birthday rewards in some cases! 

I wonder if these three modes of presence can happen concurrently. An example that I thought of was being at a LAN where one would camp at the area to play video games yet at the same time cocoon in their own virtual world whilst perhaps also footprinting if there’s a loyalty scheme. It is interesting how these three modes of presence can intersect depending on the context and situation. 

[valgjy]

NM3205 Blogpost 2 (Goh Jing Yi, Valeria)

TV and the Spaces of Everyday Life 

In this blogpost, I’m going to be touching on Lynn Spigel’s reading. This reading talks about how the post WWII era where owning a TV for leisure was seen as a postwar dream and how it was used as a spatial tool to bring families close to one another. He also mentioned that the TV is more often than not placed in the living room of the house for communal use where the family can have some bonding time. Furthermore, he also highlights that people would use the space around the TV to display items for “personal expressions of family history and cultural heritage” such as placing photos as well as religious pictures etc. All these highlights that TV was seen as a symbol of class status where one would achieve the postwar dream of owning one.

Spigel then mentioned that nowadays people have the ability to arrange TV spaces according to their wants and needs in their household. He also mentioned that the TV have been moved from the central areas of the house such as the living room to more private areas such as the individual rooms. He also highlights the idea of “hybrid spatial experience” as people are increasingly able to use TV in a different ways as well as places. This could be attributed to the advancement in technology where people are able to use the TV function at ease whether at home or when they’re out. One such example would be our smartphones and iPads where we can easily use them as “mini TVs” when we’re out and about as we’re able to download shows on our phones on platforms such as YouTube and Netflix. Furthermore, Smart TVs may also play a part as it has more functions for people to use which may cater more to one’s personal life such as gaming thus people would prefer having a TV in their bedroom for their own personal use as compared to having it in the living room.

I agree with Spigel as even in my family, I can see the movement in TV space as we all own at least one smartphone or smart device where we are able to use this function even in our bedrooms. However, it is interesting that in most families, the TV is still placed in the living room even in mine (even though we don’t use it at all) but we still do come together in front of the TV sometimes to use our devices to watch our different shows on our different devices. I can also relate to the point where he mentioned TV spaces moving into personal bedrooms as I myself have a smart TV in my room as it caters more to my wants and needs as I would stream Netflix and Youtube on it for my personal leisure as well as play my Nintendo Switch and Xbox on it from time to time. 

It is interesting to see how our different generation uses TV nowadays where our parents uses it to watch the local TV channels on the TV while we use it for different purposes such as streaming shows as well as gaming. However, I also find it intriguing as my parents are starting to get the hang of using streaming platforms such as Netflix and Youtube on their mobile devices as a form of leisure as compared to watching it on the TV. I guess we all have different preferences when it comes to watching shows now which is quite sad to say as I still remember the days when we would come together every night in front of the TV to watch shows on channel 8.

All in all, I would agree that most if not all households would deem having a TV as a necessity be it in the living room or in the bedroom. However, I think that it is no longer a symbol of class status now as almost every household has one. With the advancement in technology, more devices have been invented to make our lives more convenient which led to the decline in TV usage especially in our generation as it is easier and more convenient to reach out to our phones to stream shows when we’re out and about and even at home.