Essay

What are the uses/limits of the internet in terms of politics and/or democracy? Should we rethink the nature of the political? What happens to the nation/state in the age of networks that have the potential to span the whole planet? What has happened to the idea of "community" in the age of networked digital media? Discuss with an example.

This essay is to outline the aspects, effects and reasons against the clean-feed program that the government is planning to put in place on Australia's internet. It's also to discuss the limits of democracy and the repercussions with implementing the clean-feed program.

What are the limits of democracy? In a democratic society that promotes this important value, one must ask whether democracy is limited or limitless. A popular and effective tool in which politics use to control society is the use of censorship. In relation to this newly suggested idea of a “clean-feed”: a means to censor all explicit material on the internet, this questions the ethical implications as to whether democracy itself is being censored.(6) To censor the internet is to forever change the landscape of cyberspace. The internet is one of the last free mediums in which people worldwide can express opinions, information and entertainment freely without concerns of censorship or viewer discretion.

'The Government failed to advise the filters would be mandatory for all prior to the election'. (4)

So what exactly is the situation with the clean-feed? Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is pushing forward the notion to filter every computer in Australia. In accordance with nocleanfeed.com, the public, ISPs, State Governments, Media and censorship experts have condemned the idea.(2) Another important note is that if the clean-feed is in place, taxes will increase, causing all Australian citizens to pay a small percentage of their taxes for this new system. Networking sites have been used by members of the public to object to this idea. People are able to place a tag on their twitter accounts, disagreeing with the clean-feed. There is also a blog through nocleanfeed.com which notifies the public, essentially, of the disadvantages to a censorship. (2)

The public has voiced its opinion in a commended fashion, through democracy of course. An anti-censorship rally was held in Sydney just recently to oppose the clean-feed.(2) Networking sites such as twitter and facebook are used as means of communication, as a community to object to the government’s plans. But this asks the question: with a censorship in place in the future, would the public be allowed to voice their objections over the internet anymore? Again it relates to the ethical implications which are questioning Australia’s rights and democratic privileges, which the government so called 'promotes'.

'The filter will significantly slow down the internet for all Australians. Trials in Tasmania showed the most efficient filter caused an 87% reduction in net speed.' (5)

The EFA (Electronic Frontiers of Australia) has attacked the clean-feed notion. They have voiced opinion, stating their objection if Australia were to follow in the footsteps of North Korea, China and Burma, which are nations which have the censorship in effect.(1) In a rebuttal to the EFA’s outcry, Senator Conroy said: ‘If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.’(1) An abrasive argument nonetheless from the Senator, but it should be noted that child pornography is already illegal and the clean-feed would serve little or no purpose to that particular situation. The internet is a colossal cyberspace which sees no limits in perspective to space and quantity of WebPages and content. The clean-feed could not possibly censor the entire internet as hundreds of thousands of new content and information is uploaded daily. A flawed and limited system will not fulfill the objectives that Senator Conroy states.

What would the internet world be with a clean-feed? It would create a nation which is eliminating one of the last free democratic services to the public. It’s a service which would be less appealing and more expensive to run.(7) It’s scary to think the lengths to which the government will go to censor our words and expressions on the internet. Freedom of speech applies to everyday life and should most definitely apply to the internet spectrum also.(8) Understandably there is a strong percentage of illicit and vulgar content on the internet. But an entire censorship of absolutely everything on the internet is not the solution. Those WebPages are illegal for a reason and measures are already in place to prevent illegal behavior. The censorship is an extreme solution to a solvable problem. An entire sweep and span of censorship across the internet should only be focused on the sites with issues, not every website thinkable. The limits of the censorship are undeniable, and could not possibly place a filter on every single website on the net.

The internet is predominately a place for the community. It’s a place in which the public can freely express itself without thoughts of censorship and viewer discretion. The government does have some fair points for wanting to introduce this system, but it’s not the solution, and a strong percentage of Australian citizens agree.(9) The internet should remain an open community. As one of the last places of complete democracy in Australia, the internet should stick to its roots and remain the same. If a clean-feed were to be put in place then it would greatly tarnish the nation and make citizens question democracy itself and the limits to which we are granted. This subject even makes us question the moral fibre of politics itself and one could even say the biased standpoint in which the government tries to impose onto the public. 'I close by offering the outlines of an amended version of the law that promises not to violate the rights of adults, that affords children and adults equal and effective protection against the very harmful practices the current law cannot eradicate, and that prescribes punishments that are consistent with the tolerance necessary to support a more democratic vision of the Internet.' (10)

The public is being urged to object the clean feed. In a survey conducted, of the 18,000 people surveyed, only 13 percent agreed with the clean-feed policy.(3) In the time of an economic struggle, the money should definitely be put to better use. According to news.com.au, the budget for the “cyber-safety” initiative will accumulate to to $51.4 million dollars in the 2009-10 financial years.(3) It’s obvious to say that the strong majority of Australians’ disagree to the federal governments plan, and hopefully democracy will prove strong enough, and the ethical value that is democracy will be done justice.

All webpages accessed on the 12th of October (2009).
(1.) http://www.efa.org.au/2008/01/02/media-release-efa-attacks-clean-feed-proposal/
(2.) http://nocleanfeed.com/
(3.) http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23703848-421,00.html
(4.) http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=cleanfeed
(5.) http://www.stopthecleanfeed.com/

All webpages copyrighted: 2009.

All academic journals accessed on the 12th of October (2009).
(6.) Title: Balancing free speech and censorship: academia's response to the internet.
Author: A. Graham Peace.
Year of Publication: 2003. Vol. 46, Issue 11.

(7.) Title: Censorship on the Internet: From Filters to Freedom of Speech (Issues in Focus).
Author: Wendy Herumin.
Year of Publication: 2004.

(8.) Title: New Labor, new censorship? Politics, religion and filtering in Australia.
Author: Brian Simpson.
Year of Publication: October, 2008. Vol. 17, Issue 3.

(9.) Title: Internet Filtering and Censorship.
Author: Samir N. Hamade.
Year of Publication: 2008.

(10.) Title: Censorship, the Internet, and the child pornographylaw of 1996: A Critique.
Author: Jacques N. Catudal.
Year of Publication: 1999, Vol. 1, Issue 2.

Lecture (Week 10)

This week, instead of getting to play video games, we got to do something much funner...study them (Y).

So there are different types of games, video games is a little outdated:
PC Game.
Console Game.
Online Game.
Arcade Game.
Mobile Gaming

(There are all community based games).

The demographics for 'video games' are 80% for people between 18 - 25 year old Males in a study conducted in 2005.
Also between the ages of 25 - 40 years it was 59%, 41% of that percentage being female.

There is also a social science approach: studying the effects of games on people. Are video games making people violent?

There is a humanities approach: Meaning and content of the games, for example narrative. They are in fact artifact/mediums of art.

And finally the industry abd egineering approach: the development of games/New Communication Technologies.

However antisocial and unappealing to some people video games may appear, it improves:
1. Peripheral vision.
2. Short term memory.
3. Split decision making.
4. Manual Dexterity.

We also did a test to see whether a woman would be more attracted to a guy who played video games in his spare time in his mother's basement. Or a really athletic guy who is extremely muscly and has all the stereotypical qualities that the actresses in the movie 'Grease' really went for. SHOCKINGLY, most of the women picked the athletic guy, but in the end it all comes down to perseption.

Please note: Wasn't nerdy guy in example =]

Artwork.

Here is the original photo: (See Above).

This is what it looks like with no 'saturation': (See above).

This is what it looks like with maximum 'tint': (See above).

Maximum brightness: (See above).


Maximum darkness: (See above).

Please note: understandably, this is a simple affect that can be done by pretty much anyone, but it was the best that I could do with the next-to-nothing software I have available.

News Report

This News story is about killer dogs which are terrorising the world!

Here's the link for the iReport version:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-338635

Politics (Tutorial)

Here's the requirements for the week 8 tutorial:

1. Sign an e-petition.


E-petition signed!

2. Respond to a professional blogger at a major news site. (Nine MSN).



Basically, this blog was about Russel Brand and how he claims to have fallen in love with Katy Perry. Although this blog is fairly pointless and irrelevant to anything important in life whatsoever...it's still a popular article. However, seeing as it wasn't exactly a serious article, I felt it was necessary to post a funny comment (through the words of Kayne West).

3. What is Barak Obama doing today.

He hosted doctors from all 50 states at the White House, coming together in a powerful testimonial to what reform is all about.

Reference: http://www.barackobama.com/

4. Find out who your local, state and federal representatives.

The local representative is Councillor Dawn Crichlow.
The state representative is Peter Lawlor.
The federal representative is Steven Ciobo.

Reference: http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard.aspx?PID=5783

5. Look up the Queensland or Australian Hansard to find the last time your local member spoke in parliament.

On September the 22nd:

Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (10.03 am):

'Queensland’s tourism industry is feeling the impact of the current economic climate, and the latest

domestic tourism visitation numbers to our state reflect this. For the year ending 30 June 2009

Queensland received 16 million overnight domestic visitors, down six per cent on the previous year. On

a more positive note, Queensland maintained its second largest market share of domestic visitors,

receiving 24 per cent compared to 34 per cent for New South Wales.

During these tough economic times, this government understands that we must do everything

possible to ensure we support Queensland’s multibillion dollar tourism industry and continue to attract

visitor expenditure in Queensland of almost $19 billion each year. Tourism directly employs 119,000

Queenslanders and a further 97,000 indirectly.'

(I agree...keep it up!)

Reference: http://www.peterlawlor.com.au/southport/pages/posts/personal-property-securities-commonwealth-powers-bill4927.php

7. Read the lectures and readings, pursue a couple of the topics that you find most interesting and then post your blog with your well-considered thoughts about the theory and practice of politics.

One of the most prominent issues debated at the moment and has been for a while now is the censorship that the government is attempting to employ onto the internet. Obviously censorship should be used for specific age, for example, young children who shouldn't be exposed to explicit material on the internet. An example of this is songs on iTunes. Some songs have explicit lyrics on it and the language is bleeped which many people disagree with. Personally I think it tarnsishes the song and also it shouldn't be altered purely for a small age demographic. However, I believe that parents should enforce the boundaries of censorship expose them to explicit material when they feel it is ready.

It should also be taken into consideration the fact that people don't consider it democratic to censor the internet. The internet is one of the last mediums which is uncesored and the last place in which people from across the world can express themselves completely without having to worry about their language. Therefore it's safe to say that I disagree with the clean-feed idea, although to be fair, the government does have a valid excuse to impose censorship. Kids of society today are much more exposed to illicit materials, such as pirated songs and movies and also explicit material such as Youtube through quick access of the internet. As a result the youth of society have become more desensitised and setting the benchmark of a more vulgar generation.

Regardless of this, I still feel that the internet should not be sensored. The majority of people will not be impresisonable by the material that is leeked and posted onto the internet. But once again it's the minority which needs to be taken into consideration. In the end however, the government will make it's decision...with of course the influence of democracy. =]

8. What do you think of the government's plans to censor internet?

Personally I disagree with it. Understandably movies and other forms of media should be censored for young kids, but there comes a time when I think it's becoming to domineering. The internet is a great place to find anything that you desire, and if the internet were to be censored, then it would not be as entertaining, nor popular. For a person my age, I'm interested in video's that have explicit language and would be annoyed at the idea of censorship. In the end, I think it should be up to the parents to enforce whether their kids can watch certain sites and whether they can watch video's with explicit or vulgar content.

9. What place does censorship have in a democracy?

Democracy represents freedom of speech. Democracy is in the hands of the people. Censorship is something that I think tarnishes the rights that democracy promotes. I don't believe censorship should be in place in regards to the internet. In perspective to films, I agree with ratings and censorships, but as explained above it's up to the parents to enforce viewer discresion.

Even More Awesomeness!

More Awesomeness!