Delete or Debate: The Slippery Slope of Censorship

The moderation of online conversation is an issue that walks an extremely fine line, with the ability to effectively censor offensive or inappropriate material but also cause offense through obscuring such material. I find myself often leaning towards the latter as an individual diametrically opposed to censorship in all forms, but particularly online. I thoroughly enjoyed Couldry’s (2009) exploration of ‘voice’ and the idea that it is imperative that the varying voices of individuals not only be broadcast, but also heard. This is my key objection to anything but the most basic forms of moderation online; I believe that everyone has a right to have their say and that harsher forms of moderation compulsorily enforce subjective views on what is offensive or inappropriate.

I frequent a number of automotive forums, have played video games online since I was young and am an active user of numerous social networking sites and through this experience I have been made acutely aware of both the need for moderators and the ways in which their power can be abused. While basic editing or removal of posts that are intended to cause controversy can keep conversation on track, the ability to perform such actions can easily be abused. This is where the point I made during this weeks tutorial is based; that I believe in allowing users to self-moderate through an open forum where individuals can make their point and rebut others. If something is deemed offensive don’t remove it, allow those who are offended to articulate what it is that offends them and debate the validity of the material. Of course whenever someone tries to raise a view such as this, extreme examples such as child pornography are used to dismiss it but one has to remember how slippery the censorship slope can be.

References:

Couldry, N 2009, ‘Rethinking the politics of voice’, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, vol.23, no.4, pp.579-582

Awareness Mode: Enabled, Equality: Disabled

As with a number of topics BCM310 has brought to my attention throughout this semester, the social exclusion of disabled individuals was one that I had not considered in depth other than always seeking to be fair, inclusive and unpatronising towards such individuals in my daily life. Goggin and Newell (2007) made me question how apparent advancements in society’s acceptance and understanding of disabilities have not brought about greater accessibility or the proliferation of ‘inclusive technology’ despite the rapid technological advancements we see elsewhere. Being shown clips of sign language interpreters being cropped out of media broadcasts in the lecture further enraged me and now like when someone makes you aware of the fact that you are breathing and blinking subconsciously (gotcha!), I can’t stop myself from thinking about it and considering an endless list of examples of things that I take for granted but from which those with disabilities are thoughtlessly excluded. Making matters worse is the fact that technology is readily available to level the playing field in a number of these examples but isn’t implemented because it isn’t profitable or because the issue is easily swept aside in favour of one that affects us able-bodied folk.

Similar to last week, tutorial discussion quickly evolved to the broader issues at play; to the topic of how the disabled function in society in general, focusing on unpacking the social awkwardness that stems from trying to be accepting of an individual’s differences but ultimately doing the exact opposite. Similar to a point I raised on the topic of racism, I believe that this social awkwardness stems from issues attached to disability and not disability itself and that the only way that we as a society can move past it is by making such trivial things as your appearance or impairments non-issues. Living inside every disabled body is a unique individual and that is all that should matter in a society that so proudly boasts progress and acceptance.

References:

Goggin, G and Newell, C 2007, ‘The Business of Digital Disability’, The Information Society: An International Journal, Vol.23, No.3, 159-168

The Sky is Blue, The Grass is Green and I Am White

Coming from an Anglo-Saxon background, the notion of popular media being dominated by ‘white’ characters and culture was one that I had admittedly not put much thought into previously. After consulting the readings (Dreher 2014, Kalina 2012) I felt as if my eyes had been opened, retrospectively reviewing the media I consume on a daily basis and recognising how rare it is that races other than my own are given screen time. Multiculturalism is a value at the core of Australian culture and I greatly value the opportunities I am offered every day to socialise and share experiences with individuals from cultures different to my own. I find this to be the most fulfilling aspect of my employment as a bartender in a suburb known for its eclectic collection of ethnicities and flicking on the TV after another shift while writing this blog post, I can’t help but feel that I’m viewing what is supposedly a societal mirror through a sea of bleach.

Of course as with any discussion of racial issues, racism as a whole must be discussed and that is basically where our tutorial discussion took us. During this discussion I was able to assert my belief that the best way to eradicate racism is a cyclical approach, heading back to the days of being able to describe someone by the colour of their skin but with discriminatory connotations removed. At the beginning of this post I describe myself as Anglo-Saxon but I have no idea if my ancestors were part of the migration from continental Europe to Britain in the early 5^th century and frankly, I don’t see how such a description says anything about my character. I find terms like the classic ‘African-American’ more offensive than calling someone black as it makes a number of assumptions about a person’s ancestry and suggests that it somehow influences who they are today. Only once we as a society learn to accept that skin colour is a large portion of our aesthetics, move past the awkwardness forced upon us by political correctness gone mad and use this colour as a purely descriptive term removed from prejudice can we truly create a world without racism.

References:

Dreher, T forthcoming 2014, ‘White Bread Media’, The Media and Communications in Australia

Kalina, P 2012 ‘Diversity still out of the picture’, The Sydney Morning Herald, March 1, accessed 10/5/2013, http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/diversity-still-out-of-the-picture-20120229-1u1jg.html

DRM Drives Recalcitrants Mad

While discussing the internet’s Feudalisation, this week’s area of research raised a topic I have been passionately outspoken about since it’s inception; digital rights management and the way it inconveniences the end user to the point that they are driven to piracy. The following comic produced by Randall Monroe of xkcd perfectly illustrates my main gripe with this intrusive and ineffective form of copyright protection.

http://xkcd.com/488/

In the current digital market, obtaining your preferred form of media through legitimate channels leaves you with a product inferior to that you would find on any number of so-called ‘pirating’ websites. Did you enjoy that song you bought on iTunes so much that you wish to load it onto your MP3 player not produced by Apple and listen to it on the move? Too bad. Feel like watching that DVD you purchased while overseas in a country that is in another arbitrary ‘region’ to your own? Good luck. These are just a few examples of how new technologies are being hamstrung to the detriment of users who chose to not take the much easier route of downloading content illegally.

Doctorow (2012) outlines the two key problems with DRM that have been obvious since it’s first implementation in the early 90s and are still issues today; the inconvenience they cause the average users who attempt to operate with legitimacy and the ease with which even the mildly tech-savvy can get around them. Akester’s (2009) empirical study into the conflicts between freedom of expression and DRM raises a number of relevant examples, such as the experience of Lynn Holdsworth, a visually impaired individual who purchased a digital version of the Bible through Amazon.com and was refused a refund after DRM prevented her screen reader application from providing an audio file. After lengthy discussions with both Amazon.com and the publisher responsible for the e-Book, Lynn was left with no alternative but to illegally download a copy of the work (Akester 2009, pp.47-49).

In our tutorial we discussed legitimate forms of attaining content and Charlotte made the point that by downloading content illegally, I was taking money out of the pockets of producers. While this might be true, I morally object to paying for anything, digital content or any other product, that I am then forced to use in a particular way. I’m sure the day will come when digital distribution networks are finally up to scratch and at that time, I will happily lay down my micro-transactions and pay for what I consume. Until that day comes however, I say; power to the pirates!

http://thepiratebay.sx/

References:

Akester, P 2009, ‘Technological accommodation of conflicts between freedom of expression and DRM: the first empirical assessment’, University of Cambridge, accessed 3/5/2013, http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/faculty-resources/summary/technological-accommodation-of-conflicts-between-freedom-of-expression-and-drm-the-first-empirical-assessment/6286

Doctorow, C 2012, ‘Lockdown: The coming war on general purpose computing’, weblog post, Boing Boing, accessed 3/5/2013, http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html