The Wild Wild West
The internet. It's a new frontier.
Like the Wild West, it is growing so rapidly that it is hard to keep up. Have you ever had an add follow you around the internet based on something you once googled? Have you ever gained access to someone else intellectual property without paying royalties? Do you ever read the endless pages of legal contracts you agree to every time you sign up to an internet service or update to a newer software?
With the rise of internet 2.0 there have been some big legal and ethical issues that have arisen around the production, distribution, consumption and reception of media products. Let's break down what each of those words means.
PRODUCTION - the making of media products. This has been changing and evolving with the rise of platforms like Steam, Soundcloud, Garageband, etc. Now more than ever, audiences are producing their own media products
DISTRIBUTION - the process of releasing and distributing a media product to the general public. This used to be very top-down... meaning that distribution was usually handled by media owners such as record labels and production studios. However the internet is a platform on which anything can be distributed and shared.
CONSUMPTION - this is the manner in which audiences 'take in' a media product. Whether we binge watch a series on Netflix or Disney+ or go to the movies with friends, buy a record at a music store or access any song ever recorded via Spotify or Apple Music. The way in which audiences consume is always changing.
RECEPTION - this is the way we engage with and react to the media. Whether that be through ratings, liking or disliking or writing reviews (think about Rotten Tomatoes!) Audiences now have tremendous agency in the way they receive their media.
So lets look at some issues surrounding the media:
Consumption issue - Data Harvesting
In this new age of social media dominance, all the sites we consume (Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, etc) are free. They don't cost us any money. So what else are we giving these corporations that is far more valuable? The answer is our personal data. We give Social Media organisations our permission to sell our personal data to advertising and marketing companies. Does this sit well with you? Most of us are very much in the dark about just how much data is collected and sold... and that is very much how they would like it to be. Is our appetite for social media consumption stronger than our need for privacy?
In 2018 it was revealed that a data firm called Cambridge Analytica collected data on Facebook users by essentially tricking them into a personality test. What users didn't know is that the "quiz" also harvested data from your friend's Facebook profiles, without their knowledge or consent. This was all legal... but is it ethical?
Like the Wild West, it is growing so rapidly that it is hard to keep up. Have you ever had an add follow you around the internet based on something you once googled? Have you ever gained access to someone else intellectual property without paying royalties? Do you ever read the endless pages of legal contracts you agree to every time you sign up to an internet service or update to a newer software?
With the rise of internet 2.0 there have been some big legal and ethical issues that have arisen around the production, distribution, consumption and reception of media products. Let's break down what each of those words means.
PRODUCTION - the making of media products. This has been changing and evolving with the rise of platforms like Steam, Soundcloud, Garageband, etc. Now more than ever, audiences are producing their own media products
DISTRIBUTION - the process of releasing and distributing a media product to the general public. This used to be very top-down... meaning that distribution was usually handled by media owners such as record labels and production studios. However the internet is a platform on which anything can be distributed and shared.
CONSUMPTION - this is the manner in which audiences 'take in' a media product. Whether we binge watch a series on Netflix or Disney+ or go to the movies with friends, buy a record at a music store or access any song ever recorded via Spotify or Apple Music. The way in which audiences consume is always changing.
RECEPTION - this is the way we engage with and react to the media. Whether that be through ratings, liking or disliking or writing reviews (think about Rotten Tomatoes!) Audiences now have tremendous agency in the way they receive their media.
So lets look at some issues surrounding the media:
Consumption issue - Data Harvesting
In this new age of social media dominance, all the sites we consume (Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, etc) are free. They don't cost us any money. So what else are we giving these corporations that is far more valuable? The answer is our personal data. We give Social Media organisations our permission to sell our personal data to advertising and marketing companies. Does this sit well with you? Most of us are very much in the dark about just how much data is collected and sold... and that is very much how they would like it to be. Is our appetite for social media consumption stronger than our need for privacy?
In 2018 it was revealed that a data firm called Cambridge Analytica collected data on Facebook users by essentially tricking them into a personality test. What users didn't know is that the "quiz" also harvested data from your friend's Facebook profiles, without their knowledge or consent. This was all legal... but is it ethical?
|
|
|
Production issue - Fake News
We hear this all the time. Donal Trump loves to discredit any news outlet that doesn't agree with him as 'fake news' - so the phrase can become tiresome... but Fake News certainly exists! It even may have helped Trump more than he knows.
The majority of people no longer get their news from the newspaper, Television or radio. In fact, 62% of Americans now get their news from the internet, and Facebook is the most popular avenue. Because the articles on Facebook can be written and produced by absolutely anyone, the influence that false or misleading articles have on audiences is growing rapidly. Does facebook have an ethical duty to make sure its readers are well informed? Are they responsible for the dumbing down of society?
We hear this all the time. Donal Trump loves to discredit any news outlet that doesn't agree with him as 'fake news' - so the phrase can become tiresome... but Fake News certainly exists! It even may have helped Trump more than he knows.
The majority of people no longer get their news from the newspaper, Television or radio. In fact, 62% of Americans now get their news from the internet, and Facebook is the most popular avenue. Because the articles on Facebook can be written and produced by absolutely anyone, the influence that false or misleading articles have on audiences is growing rapidly. Does facebook have an ethical duty to make sure its readers are well informed? Are they responsible for the dumbing down of society?
|
|
|
Distribution issue - Internet Piracy
Ever since the inception of the internet, its core foundations have rested on the principals of open standards, universal access and freedom of expression. No-one owns it and it is largely unregulated. However, this has meant there are now many avenues that distribute and share media that has traditionally been the intellectual property of an individual or corporation.
Australian's are some of the biggest internet pirates in the world (yay us!). Largely due to our geographical location, constrictive media broadcasting licences and inflated cost of living. So do we have a legal or ethical right to access the same media content as our cultural neighbours in the UK and North America?
What would happen if we did try to impose legal penalties for the sharing of copyright material in the internet? In 2012, the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' (or SOPA) was a US bill that tried to combat online copyright infringement. This bill was very controversial as it worked against the core values and principals that the internet was founded on and could potentially criminalise most internet users.
Ever since the inception of the internet, its core foundations have rested on the principals of open standards, universal access and freedom of expression. No-one owns it and it is largely unregulated. However, this has meant there are now many avenues that distribute and share media that has traditionally been the intellectual property of an individual or corporation.
Australian's are some of the biggest internet pirates in the world (yay us!). Largely due to our geographical location, constrictive media broadcasting licences and inflated cost of living. So do we have a legal or ethical right to access the same media content as our cultural neighbours in the UK and North America?
What would happen if we did try to impose legal penalties for the sharing of copyright material in the internet? In 2012, the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' (or SOPA) was a US bill that tried to combat online copyright infringement. This bill was very controversial as it worked against the core values and principals that the internet was founded on and could potentially criminalise most internet users.
|
|
|
Reception issue - Cancel Culture
Recently, we have seen a huge rise in media programs being canceled from streaming services, censorship and warnings. This is a by-producet of the #Blacklivesmatter movement after the killing of Geroge Floyd in 2020. Characters and situations that were once deemed acceptable are now not in line with current progressive values. Racially insensitive characters in Gone With The Wind have caused some streaming services to drop that movie or display a warning at the beginning. Chris Lilly's depiction of POC in Angry Boys, Summer Heights Heigh and Jonah From Tonga have caused those TV programs to be dropped from some streaming services. Even the Germans episode of Fawlty Towers has caused some uproar.
Recently, Coon Cheese have decided to change the name of their cheese (named after an American man who patented a method, subsequently known as the Cooning process, for fast maturation of cheese via high temperature and humidity. Coon is also a derogatory reference to POC. Do you think a company like Coon has gone too far? Or do you think they have a right to re-brand in the face of changing public opinion
What do you think about this? Do you think this is a case of over the top moral outrage? Or do you think these types of programs were ethical issues that need to be addressed? This is an ethical issue about the way audiences receive and react to media products. If they are offended by characters and storylines produced in the past, is it ok to remove them for people to see in the future?
Recently, we have seen a huge rise in media programs being canceled from streaming services, censorship and warnings. This is a by-producet of the #Blacklivesmatter movement after the killing of Geroge Floyd in 2020. Characters and situations that were once deemed acceptable are now not in line with current progressive values. Racially insensitive characters in Gone With The Wind have caused some streaming services to drop that movie or display a warning at the beginning. Chris Lilly's depiction of POC in Angry Boys, Summer Heights Heigh and Jonah From Tonga have caused those TV programs to be dropped from some streaming services. Even the Germans episode of Fawlty Towers has caused some uproar.
Recently, Coon Cheese have decided to change the name of their cheese (named after an American man who patented a method, subsequently known as the Cooning process, for fast maturation of cheese via high temperature and humidity. Coon is also a derogatory reference to POC. Do you think a company like Coon has gone too far? Or do you think they have a right to re-brand in the face of changing public opinion
What do you think about this? Do you think this is a case of over the top moral outrage? Or do you think these types of programs were ethical issues that need to be addressed? This is an ethical issue about the way audiences receive and react to media products. If they are offended by characters and storylines produced in the past, is it ok to remove them for people to see in the future?
|
|
|
