Take a news story and unintentionally hilarious interview subject. What do you get? A ridiculously viral Internet sensation! You may have heard of and/or seen the currently globally known clip ‘Apparently Kid.’ Check it out below:
Five-year-old Noah Ritter has since had his world turned upside down, featuring in interviews on The Ellen Show, Good Morning America, Today News and recently starring in a new Fresh Pet advertisement. It’s crazy how being in the right place at the right time can pretty much get you what some people work for their entire lives, overnight. Sigh. Anyway, props to the kid!
This week’s text by Andrew Murphie and John Potts revolves around the different perspectives of how the technology affects culture. To set my view in context, here’s the background you need to know:
- ‘Technological determinism refers to the belief that technology is the agent of social change.
- Technological determinism tends to consider technology as an independent factor, with its own properties, its own course of development, and its own consequences.
- Technical innovation will generate a new type of society’
I find it very surprising that anyone could assume an entirely technologically determinist view when it excludes so many factors that can contribute to cultural change.
It should first be made aware that technological innovation is usually firstly instigated by a demand and/or desire from society, or as inspired by something that already exists. When you think about it, each new technology that we use today is basically a ‘new and improved’ derivative of something that is pre-existing and used. If a product or it’s particular features prove to be successful amongst the public, this in itself indicates to innovators that a market already exists for the idea. Innovators would surely then undertake extensive market research in order to predict if their proposed product has the potential to take off. They must assess what features and trends are successful on other platforms and consider the wants, needs and changing relationships that consumers have with technology.
With this is mind, it is already clear that society and culture essentially drive the innovation of new technology. Whilst I don’t deny that once products can have an influence over a culture once they become available, it is important to note that technological development is fuelled by their behaviour in the first place. I feel like this factor pretty much rules out the technologically determinist view all together, as you can always trace the evolution technology back to society. Technological determinists seriously need to consider the fact that technology is not just changing us, but we are changing technology.
It is no secret that individual privacy is not what it used to be. Whilst intrusions into personal space and physical belongings remain as issues in today’s society, modern digital technology has opened a multitude of doors to make privacy invasion even easier. As Evan points out, our privacy is no longer protected even when on the commute, as public mobile phone conversations can reveal personal information to nearby eavesdroppers. Is reasonable, however, to consider situations such as these as an invasion of privacy when the information is made public by the ‘stalkee’ themselves?
Social media is probably the greatest and most controversial factor in this area. Users may post or feature in content that, dependent on their given privacy settings, may unintentionally become available to the wider public’s eye. It should also be noted that once content is out there, you can not always trust and rely on the delete button. Just because you’ve erased something from your site, does not mean it has been eliminated from the Internet all together, OR from a strangers hard drive, for that matter (creepy I know, but it can happen).
Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter make it extraordinarily easy for anyone to access your content. In my personal instance, being no ‘Smith’ and having a unique surname makes me even more identifiable on the net. Being merely one of two Laura Doguet’s of Facebook, I must be extremely wary of what I post as future employers, or anyone else on a mission out to sus me out, don’t have to go to much effort to track me down. Therefore, I must be mindful of any material that could potentially be detrimental to me socially and/or professionally later down the track. In saying this, the same applies to anyone, regardless of the commonness of his or her second name.
I want to stress that I’m not saying you must curl up in the ball in the corner and stay away from the Internet all together, but we simply need to be careful. We must all be mindful about how we represent ourselves online – both in a visual and literary format – as you can never be sure what might come back and bite you later on. We can not blame others for invading our privacy when it is our own actions that have lead to the content becoming visible to their eye. So the next time you think about posting a racey photo on Facebook, an abusive subtweet on Twitter or paying a bill over the telephone whilst on a train, for your own good, I’d advise you to think again!
