Minder!

‘Min-der! Min-der! Min-der!’

My name is Jolanda Heesemans, a Dutch person who lives in the Netherlands. This is a really small country in Europe. But it is not less famous because it is small. Other countries speak a lot about the Netherlands, but this is not only positive. One of the reasons why is a politician in the Netherlands which is named Geert Wilders. I can say that I am really scared by this man, and I know that I am not the only one in the Netherlands. This man is fed up with the Islam, with foreigners in the Netherlands and with everything that has to do with other countries. He wants to live in a country which has only Dutch persons, a Dutch culture, Dutch churches, and the Dutch language. And of course there are more people like him on this planet, so why am I so scared? This is mainly because Geert Wilders says everything he wants in front of the camera. I will give a famous example.

It is a normal evening in March when Geert Wilders won the local elections in his city. He had to give a speech for a public of supporters of his politic party. He wanted to end the speech with three questions and asked the public to answer. He wanted to have the answers that define his political party. The first question was: Do you want more or less (in Dutch ‘’less’’ means: minder) European Union? Everyone shouted: Min-der! Min-der! Min-der! The second question was: Do you want more or less PVDA (another political party in the Netherlands, who stands for equal rights)? The same answer was given by the public: Min-der! Min-der! Min-der! Wilders went on with the third question, knowing that it is not allowed in the Netherlands: Do you want, in this city, in the whole Netherlands, more or less Moroccan people? The public shouted for the third time: Min-der! Min-der! Min-der!

The video of this speech went viral, a lot of people saw it and everyone had their own opinion. But for the people who didn’t see it, here is a link to a video of the third, and most problematic, question of Wilders (with English subtitles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGy-CYhZczo.

Wilders can find support in the Netherlands, but most of the people do not like his opinions and actions. It became a hype to make parodies on these questions under the people who do not like him. The most famous one is: Do we want more or less Wilders? With the answer: Min-der! Min-der! Min-der!

But of course this kind of actions does not end with a few stupid parodies. And it does not stay between the borders of the Netherlands. It crossed the borders via the Internet, most of all in newspapers and on social media. A lot of Muslim countries know Wilders now, and are not pleased by his ideas. They hate him, which makes that he is on a lot of dead-lists by extremists.

This is what scares me. When Wilders says something, it always goes viral. It does not stay in the Netherlands, but because of the great amount of users of Internet, Wilders is known in every country. What Wilders is going to do the next time? Who is going to know this? And what will be the reaction of the world? The only thing Wilders and I have in common is that we are both Dutch. But what if extremists think that this is enough to do an attack on me? What if extremists are going to hate all the people in the Netherlands? For example Amsterdam, the city where I use to live, is on a list of the ISIS. Why? Is this because of Wilders?

So yes, this Dutch politician is scaring me. Not because he is dangerous, but because his actions are dangerous.

- Jolanda Heesemans

Jay-Z's New Streaming Service.

Hov goes Tidal

"Hola, Hovito. That's what they saying when I roll up with my people."

Just a few weeks ago, in late March, Jay-Z unveiled an innovative and collaborative new streaming service called Tidal. A self-described hustler, Jay is well known for his ambitious undertakings, turning his talent and celebrity into a global brand that includes clothes, beauty products, clubs, even part-ownership of a professional basketball team to go along with his 21 Grammy Awards. Thus begs the question, why a streaming service?

"The Nets could go 0 for 82 and I'd look at you like this shit gravy."

Streaming services have revolutionized the music industry. Pandora began in 2000, at the very dawn of the “singles” era. Not only have they racked up users like nobody’s business, they’ve also flattened the music industry, making it more accessible to more people than ever before. Services like Soundcloud offer artists the opportunity to reach a wide audience without a major record deal. 

Unnecessary.

These services are also ultra-collaborative: any user can download any user-made playlist on Spotify, or Soundcloud. These playlists have become a playground for user comments and conversations. Streaming sites are extremely user-friendly: each has developed a series of algorithms to allow users to explore music similar to their indicated tastes.  

Like any new media, streaming sites have not only revolutionized listening to music, they've managed to earn outrageous revenues while doing so. Pandora earned nearly $900 million in 2014 while Spotify's reported revenue starts with a "B" and ends in "illion dollars." The very same algorithms that determine users' preferences are used to sell ads to targeted consumers. The more data these streaming sites compile, the more accurate and effective the advertisements. 

The most surprising part? Artists are often paid only pennies per play. 

The difficulties with royalties that artists have faced because of streaming services like Spotify and Pandora are well documented. Taylor Swift famously pulled all of her music off of Spotify to protest paltry earnings. The undisputed king of 2014, Pharrell’s “Happy,” was streamed over 40 million times on Pandora in the first quarter alone. His paycheck? $2,700.

So Jay has gone and bought a streaming service, despite Spotify’s 60 million and Pandora’s 80 million active users. The market is crowded and these brands are already well-established. So how is Tidal different?

Well there are a few things that set Tidal apart from the rest of the market. To start Tidal includes music videos. Much more significantly, Jigga has the overwhelming support of some of the industry’s biggest names; the list includes Kanye West, Jason Aldean, Daft Punk, and Madonna, just to name a few. These artists own at least a 3% equity in the company, each. That’s huge. If and when Tidal lands exclusive content, Hov might have something of a runaway success on his hands. 

Because obviously Kanye wants in on this.

However, the collaborating artists are not the only difference between Tidal and its competitors. Hovito promises a much higher quality stream with a bit rate between four and five times faster than both Spotify and Pandora. The quality has been reported as "lossless." This means that when the audio is compressed for download, almost no data is lost, leading to a substantially fuller-sounding song. Although this is not insubstantial, many critics are left puzzled and asking “why?” Most users don’t care about the quality, if they did, they’d listen to vinyls. In addition, the higher quality promises to eat up massive amounts of data, a costly proposition. 

Jigga man might be onto something here. Naturally, it’s way too premature to judge the venture. Like Hova always says, “Mama didn’t raise no fool.” He’s literally a modern day character from a Horatio Alger novel. From slinging crack cocaine to designing clothes and selling out stadiums in Paris, he hasn’t failed yet. His net worth is an estimated $520 million. I’m inclined to give Jay-Z the benefit of the doubt. 

Not an exaggeration.

But how is all of this relevant to new media and convergence? Well, streaming itself is a new media platform. Streaming sites have flattened the music industry and shaped its development for the entire twenty-first century. Tidal, with its music as well as music videos, is seeking to join the fray and devastate the market. 

In terms of convergence, streaming combines all the fun of advertising metrics and market research with the joy of discovering new music. It's an entirely new way for artists to sell music and for advertisers to find the right users to target. The crazy thing is, they're only possible together. 

They will never brawl the same way: how Internet have changed anti-fascism.

The respect of one's privacy is considered by most as a political issue which democracy has to deal with, and it is commonly acknowledged that Internet has emphasized with the development of social networks. We put our lives on the web, and our information are accessible more or less simply. The barrier between private and public life becomes more and more blurred as we publicize our lives, and one of their major aspects is our political opinions. Even if lots of users do not reveal their political beliefs, affiliation and votes on the social media, you can say one's political orientation just in browsing their Facebook walls or their retweets. When we speak about privacy on Internet as a political issue, one generally thinks about intrusion by a government. The fact that a government has the power to record our political opinions and activities is largely disapproved by people.

Nevertheless, the government is not the only actor who can intrude our ''privacy'' to look for our opinions. Actually, if you have taken part in any sensible political discussion on Internet, you are more likely to have been watched by activists than by any government. The radical conflict that takes place between anti-fascist and radical right activists is to deeply connected to ethics for them to accept each others opinions. Indeed, each group organize a real hunt to discover the identities of their opponents, and to develop a list of them. If you have talked about race, migrations, homosexuality or abortion on Internet, and especially on a local website (for example a local news media), it is very probable that people went on your profile to check if you are an activist. In the conflict that takes place between anti-fascists and the radical right, there is no room for privacy. However, generally extreme right activist prefer to keep their records to act later while the antifascist prefer to publicize the identity and the convictions of their adversaries.

If you browse a bit on leftist and anarchist websites, you should quickly end up in anti-fascist blogs. On these blogs or websites, anti-fascist activists write lists of extreme right activists, associating their full names and their pictures, sometimes adding some personal information such as their dress, their job etc. On the British website EDL News, there is a list of the far right sex offenders list, where one can find the name, party, description of the crime and sometimes a link to a news article about these people. In lots of countries, websites named ''fascist watch'' or ''nazi watch'' exist. One of the most developed is the French Fafwatch network, which is materialized by regional blogs about the local far-right groups : it is very interesting to see how these websites, which are often blogs hosted by non-commercial websites such as noblog.org, constitute an international networks where every blog recommends the others. There is not one single big website which contain all the articles and index them, but lots of decentralized local blogs, and this can be explained by practical reasons. The antifascists never have a single national organization as they are generally libertarian and refuse the required hierarchy of a big group, so they prefer to organize themselves locally, but also because the censorship of their blogs is regular : better lose momentarily a part of the network than the whole.

2010 Front National candidate and his back tattoo
"Blut und Ehre" was a slogan for the Hitler Youth, pictures were found and revealed on Internet by anti-fascists

What is very interesting is that the activists who create and participate to these websites mostly use the social networks, especially Facebook, to get information. In this way, an article is generally composed of pictures of the actions of a particular activist (it is often pictures of extreme right graffitis), pictures of the individual and its full name, which are most of the time very simply found on their Facebook page. The personal address and phone number are generally found thanks to the domain name of websites, or to company statuses, which are linked to a particular individual. Once again, all this can be found by any skilled activist on the web.

This has become recently more institutionalized before the 2015 departmental elections in France. Indeed, a list was made, where one can find some Front National (the french extreme right party) candidates and some of their quotations found on the social networks. But what is remarkable about this list is that it was not made by the traditional antifascist activists, close to the anarchist movement, but by the french Communist Party, which is nowadays a a kind of radical social democrat party. This had an echo, and some of these candidates were excluded by the Front National because of their words. Once again, what an individual has said on Facebook (or, less often, Twitter) becomes a real responsibility and sticks to its career.

An example of what stands on the list the Communist Party made : Thierry Brésolin, Front National candidate (excluded), Teil county, Ardèche "Marine (leader of the Front National), you are the reincarnation of Hitler. You will clean France we trust you for that''

The recent Facebook confidentiality rules have changed this phenomenon a bit, but it can be quite easily bypassed by the use of fake accounts. The activists have to create a fake identity to introduce the network of their adversaries, and as soon as they have been accepted as Facebook friends they can easily look for information, pictures etc. Prudence and suspicion have always been present and necessary to these radical groups, but the rules have changed. Ten years ago, the main rules were: be cautious when you go to or leave a demonstration, do not wear political signs when walking alone... Today, it is more like: do not accept strangers as friends on Facebook, do not put pictures of your face on Internet, do not use your real name... Bruno Latour considers that new medias do not create anything, they only serve a purpose that people feel the need to achieve. In this way, media are only ''backdrop for human action'', which give opportunities to act. Indeed, the conflict and the fights between fascists and antifascists did not wait for Internet to be a reality, but it is clear that the means they use are very different than they were before.

Fight between Anti-Fascists and the British Union of Fascists, 1936

It is true that nowadays the web is a major tool to promote political ideas and movements, and it appears to be the best place to access information and to discuss freely about sensible subjects, but even if it has to be kept as a neutral and safe space for everybody it cannot be a space of total freedom. Because Internet is the result of a perpetual cooperation, it permits interactions. And when this interaction raises such fundamental ethics issues as discriminations, it becomes a clash with concrete consequences. Antifascists want to prevent the extreme right to spread hate in putting the people responsible in danger while the question of the responsibility of the media itself is quite complicated. As disgusting as Fascism, Neo-Nazism or Holocaust denial are, censorship is practically difficult (which symbols to ban ? how to supervise what the users say?), and it would stand in the way of the creation of a neutral web. In this way, most of the social networks are actually very permissive with the publications of the far right.  

How do media change our world (or lips)

There have been more and less unbelievable trends what comes to people's looks in the media. It is hard to say where do these trends come from, but one thing is for sure: media have effect on how people see themselves. Trends have become global, which is visible in such social media services as Instagram. Some people are fond of it; others see it as the biggest curse of our digital century.

As a picture service, users' looks easily become of main focus. First there was a #selfie, then became #belfie and now the thing seems to be #fullips. As #selfies started their spread, so did the lips in the same time in them. Now lips seem to be getting fuller - by hook or by crook. However, not everyone wants to go for plastic surgeries, because of their possible side effects or simply negative consequences. But we want fuller lips! What to do?

There are several actors who seem to be leaders of the trend. One of them is @kyliejenner, a model being followed by 20,6 million users making her the ninth most followed Instagram user. Nor does @kimkardashian and her botox have less than 30 million followers and being the third most followed person there according to The Telegraph.

instagram.com/kyliejenner

We are not talking about thousands, but millions of pictures what comes to hashtags referring to lips. Here are some numbers that can be found on Instagram. For comparison, #selfie should be the 12th most popular hashtag on IG (top-hashtags.com). These numbers are from 13.4.2015.

#selfie 257 130 010

#sexylips 141 351

#kiss 27 311 898

#fulllips 69 041

#lips 17 135 463

#fullipsgirl 495

One symptom of this trend is great popularity of #fullipsenhancer, a tool that makes your lips look fuller without plastic surgery. Their Instagram profile, @fullipsenhancer, with no less than 192 000 followers today, leaves no space for doubts for the fact that #fullips are a trend of today.

Now that we have found out how to get fuller lips without surgery, we can take a look on our possibly changing perceptions of what is beautiful. There have been articles on the media on how Instagram influences especially the young users. Plastic surgery agencies are reporting increasing numbers of clients, for which some thank social media and Instagram for. However, it is hard to say whether or not Instagram has a role in this, and in the case yes, how big is this role.

So, we end up asking the question whether media influences us or not. This topic is not a trouble of only today, media effects have been discussed already by mr. Walter Benjamin in the 1930's, Marshall McLuhan in the 1960's and Raymond Williams in his Analysis of Culture. As Benjamin saw the technology, and so the media making deep changes in people, Williams ended up being more positive in his analysis. He spoke about the selective tradition in his analysis: traditional culture of society rather responses to circumstances, that means, rather society's interests and values than, for example the media itself.

Even the science doesn't agree whether media and trends effect society and whether the possible impact would be direct or indirect. We can ask ourselves is a human really just an object on which several factors influence and change him? Or are we rather critical at some point? I think that we are. So, following @kyliejenner or @kimkardashian on Instagram, does not necessarily mean that you will get obsessed in getting the lips. Seeing your friend having had an operation does not mean that you will run to the clinic the week after. There are other factors that make us obsessed, too.

But, back to the Earth, and the #fulllips. As I said, it is not for granted that in 2016 everyone will have their lips sucked / operated fuller. I think #fulllips should also been thought as a trend, a media trend more specifically. It is difficult to say how long does one single trend stay alive, but for sure is that trends come and go (and possibly come back later again). I see Instagram celebrities leading or at least sparkling this trend in some of their followers heads. Even though not all the 30 million human creatures go for it, there will be some that at least try duckfacing next time they take a selfie. And idea of fuller lips spreads.

As I am writing this post for a course about media convergence, we could also see #fullips through multiple media. Not only Instagram is involved, but also, I suppose at least, that pictures are shared in other apps / services like Tumblr, Pinterest, WeHeartIt or Snapchat. This trend is visible on other apps too. Also, where ever does @kyliejenner end up on the media, rising her visibility in public, consequencing in the rise of followers (possibly). And so do people join and share their mutual world on the media.

35th anniversary: Can't beat the teletext

Time travel is not impossible: One push on the teletext button of the remote control and one is transported to the early 80s. Brief news dispatches appear, spelled out in bright, thickly pixelated text. As old-fashioned as it looks, the news on the screen isn’t from the ’80s—it’s from right now. Almost four decades after it started, teletext didn't change at all. And in a number of states like my home country Germany it didn't miss its popularity, too. 

German teletext of ARD
source: Wikimedia Commons

The navigation is troublesome and the design reminds of an old Atari game: It's probably no lie that the teletext is anything but attractive. Nevertheless millions of people around the globe obviously love to rummage through the virtual pages shown on their television screen. It's was 35 years ago that the German public TV turned on their Teletext service and still: More than twelve million people make use of this digital relict every day. Even though the number is finally decreasing, altogether 60 million Germans used the Teletext in 2013, that's still three-fourth of all citizens.
And the fan base of the Teletext does not limit itself to Central Europe: Scandinavian countries draw the same picture. In Sweden it's even the most famous public service medium: Out of 9.4 million Swedes, two million access teletext through their televisions every day, and about 3.5 million do so every week. Finland and Norway have similar percentages of the population using teletext regularly: about a fifth of the country every day, and about a third every week. Denmark’s share is even larger: 2.6 million people access teletext every week, which is almost half of the country’s population.

The goodbye note of Ceefax

It's bitter irony that of all systems the pioneer of the Teletext world has had to shut down: Ceefax, the BBC's teletext information service was the first in the world when it launched in 1974. Initially it contained just 30 pages and the data was carried in a previously unused part of the spectrum allocated to analogue television. But because of the switch to digital television, Britons had to say farewell to their news provider in 2012 and even Ceefax left a goodbye note, that still circulates on twitter. Anyway a piece of Ceefax lives on - the quiz game Bamboozle, that was featured on the Teletext of Channel 4, is now available as an application for smartphones.

contributions by Dan Farrimon..

..and Raquel Meyers
source: ITAF

Who acquired a taste for the Teletext's retro feel now, should take a look at this: The International Teletext Art Festival. Artists present their reduced pixel work on 24 lines with each 39 characters using six colours plus black and white - thus in the original teletext style. The work of last years participants can be admired on the website.

In a number of surveys people have been asked why they still use the teletext. The answers varified: To find out the latest sport scores, get some news, figure out what to watch. The teletext works as a pre-internet: It offers everything from quiz games to telephone sex numbers. The Teletext simply has something for everyone.

Twitter opinions vs public opinion

When Internet appeared and people started having access to the computer networks a new era seemed to begin. Now we can communicate with people living on the other side of the world, we can learn, read and watch new things through our computer and even work on Internet.

Internet was founded on October 29, 1969 but it wasn't until late 90's when it expanded and became the tool and phenomenon we know today. After the boom it generated, the network stabilized, expanded worldwide and became accessible for most of the world's population.

We tend to think that everyone is connected to the network and we often forget all those who don't have the opportunity or skills to use it. The digital divide is an economic and social inequality between groups of person that don't have access to information and communication technology within a geographic area, society or community.

But within people who has access to Internet seems to be a general thinking that the big network is going to change our future and even our present.

With the beginning of Internet it was also the beginning of Social Networking services, online platforms to build social relations among people who share activities and interests. The firsts ones were Theglobe.com and Geocities, after appeared Linkedin and MySpace but the now is Facebook the biggest one.

After Facebook, Twitter is the second most used social network. It is a microblogging site where users can share 140-character texts and read what have write other users. Unlike Facebook, where you have to sing up to see what other say (and be friends of them) on Twitter you can read almost everything (not a lot of people change their privacy preferences) and it has become a top source for real-time news sharing.

Social networks like Facebook and Twitter have made possible what we know as citizen journalism and have been a very important part of recent social movements like Arab Spring and 15-M Movement in Spain. These networks facilitated the communication between citizens and move protest from Internet to the streets.

Even after these movements finish these networks have continued to be seen as one of the best options for users to express their opinions, protest against governments and raise their voice. People can comment on online news and share what they want. We observe what is trending topic on Twitter and most of the time we think that what happens on Internet is what happens on real life and that what people writes is what population thinks. But is Internet the new general opinion or only a distortion of it?

A recent study published by PeerReach analyzed the profile of Twitter users and tried to found what they have in common all over the world and in different countries. According to this study, there are 39 millions of Twitter accounts in Spain, a country with 47,27 millions of population, but only 14% of them were considered active accounts (account that tweet frequently).

We also know that 43% of Twitter users are between 10 and 20 years old and 37% of them are between 20 and 29. Another study showed that Spanish users tend to have a more leftist thought that average population.

This highlights the youth of social networks users and also remind us that not everything that is posted on Internet is what people thinks. Trending topics doesn't mean political changes and Internet demands are not always listened.

Sometimes there are issues that make Internet explode. People writes and shares lots of information about it and then, after some days, it all disappears. We live in a quick world, and Internet is also a quick movement. But this doesn't mean that Twitter or Facebook are useless. They are new tools and we are learning to use them. They can be very useful and they can help to change things, but they aren't a magical wand.

Omnipresent F

Everyone is there, your friends, colleagues, parents and even grandparents... everyone is on Facebook, even your aunt who likes to gossip with the whole family about pictures or new relationships she has seen in her news feed. This huge book now has faces of millions of users all around the world, allowing you to connect with anybody on the planet within few clicks, knowing just their last name, kinder garden they attended or their 4th cousin from mother’s side... golden grail for all the stalker. In its beginnings the website was dedicated to keep you in touch with your fraternity bros/sisters, professors and alumni. Now, it has great range of features far more complex than young Mark could have thought about in his early years.

*not actual Mark

Facebook is developing at great pace and thanks to its large user base has huge potential to catch up on other services. In order to increase its share on streaming video market, where YouTube has the leading position, Facebook eased the way of managing video content and allowed embedding videos on other websites. For users on mobile platforms, external links now open within app using Facebook’s own browser… watch-out Chrome and Mozilla. With content generated on demand, you won’t use other app but Facebook… and Messenger of course. Messenger is now separated app dedicated to only to messaging. With it’s recently launched own website and released API for third party developers, the app boosted its attractiveness for many new users. Releasing API for developers will help Facebook attract more users from countries where messaging market is more diversified, mainly in Asia. When launched, Messenger was the number one app on the store, with just 1 star rating. This has changed just within a year and Messenger is on the way to become the universal communication tool, say goodbye to SMS and cellular calls, good job! Another feature coming soon is money-transfer feature. User will be able to transfer money to anyone on his friend list, directly competing with PayPal. Micro-transactions and money services represents very lucrative and perspective business for Facebook. The wide range and increasing quality of services Facebook provides is not the only factor behind the growth of this social-network giant.

Successful acquisitions greatly helped in expansion of services, user database and know-how. In 2012 Facebook purchased Instagram for 1 billion dollars. Some say the purchase was due the fact that Facebook’s mobile app was pretty awful, while on the other hand Instagram’s app was not. (I personally agree with this opinion.) More importantly, Instagram has currently about 300 million monthly active users, not bad. The largest acquisition by Facebook yet was Whatsup. The 19 billion dollar purchase in 2014 opened the gates to servers of 700 million monthly active users and significantly increased the share on messaging app market. In addition there are 500 million monthly active users on Messenger, and Facebook alone registers 1.35 billion monthly active users, out of which 1.12 billion are mobile users. Data generated by the user base is the gold of every social network. All our “Likes”, “Check-ins” and posts are collected and analysed, creating our own social pattern. Facebook knows everything; what you eat* (thanks Instagram), where you eat* and with whom you eat* (*use any verb, Facebook still knows it). All this enables Facebook to generate content made-to-measure based on user's behaviour, making the social-experience “more unique”.

When there is limited market, you obviously need to expand it to grow. In Facebook’s case, the growth is limited by uneven global Internet coverage. This issue is addressed by project called Connectivity Lab. Main idea of this project is to cover remote areas with Internet connection using drones. Well, more Internet users equals more Facebook users, it is simple math. The acquisition of Oculus Rift early this year confirms that Facebook wants to be even more present in our daily life. Virtual Reality is still young concept but I believe there are great opportunities with this technology for every-day use in the near future.

We may expect that at some point in the future everyone on the planet will have an account on some universal platform where all financial, medical and personal data will be stored. This platform will be our virtual “black box” uniting all services and networks one needs for life. This box although won’t be in our living rooms or bedrooms, it will be omnipresent on any device you take in hand, just simply type your username, password or let the device read your fingerprint. There will be no need for wallet with your ID, medical insurance or credit card in it, just your one account.