The price of Uber services vary depending on the level of battery on your phone, your apps know where you have been last night, your holiday gift spies on you, PayPal shares your personal data with more than 600 companies and 5G Wifi might be harmful for human’s health. Such is the reality of our digital era.

In his research paper Platforms Intervene, T. Gillespie claims that social media platforms algorithms shape social dynamics. He highlights the private nature of these social media platforms, such as Facebook or Twitter, and suggests that the platforms algorithms are financially motivated. Hence, the social dynamics and public culture depend on those algorithms dictated by the idea of monetisation.  In the age of digitisation, every step we make can be connected to a program or to a device, which helps us being entertained or to accomplish practical tasks such as opening and closing doors (iPhone controlled locks). Innovation is promoted as a positive aspect of human civilisation, but are we aware of the new set of actors which participate in our everyday basic tasks? Adam Greenfield (2017) mentions 3 factors defining our user experience: first of all, we depend on those who produce our devices and those who create the apps. Secondly, manufactures and developers force us to accommodate by a fast rate of the technological innovation: as soon as the newest version of a device or an operating system is released, we learn how to use it. And finally, the variety of tasks we accomplish using our smartphones is tremendous: from taking a picture to arranging a date via Tinder. Large spectrum of our activities is defined by interface design, networks and strategies of manufacturing enterprises. Contemporary human condition in a connected world is a complex system of strategies undertaken for the interest of monetisation.

By using smartphones as a basic ritual of our everyday life, we let them use our data without our consent. According to the New York Times survey, our smartphones are tracked and our trace stays available for at least 20 minutes. This path is used by companies for a targeting purposes. Another report by Mozilla Foundation (2019) shows that the newest devices on the market, such as smartwatches or litter robots, are improved security wise, but remain questionable regards to users privacy and data collection. This year saw an expansion of smart home ecosystems from big tech companies, allowing companies like Amazon to reach deeper into user’s lives. Customer data is also being used in ways users may not have anticipated, even if it’s stated in the privacy policy. (Mozilla Foundation, 2019) If Uber application has access to your mobile device’s level of battery, which personalises a cost of travel, how far can this access go? If sending money via Paypal means your data is shared with 600 external companies such as Apple or Google, where does the privacy begin? Is it possible in a digitisation context to control where surveillance of a capitalistic machine ends? The question remains open.

the apps I use to socialise and to move around the city

References:

https://new-aesthetic.tumblr.com

Mozilla Foundation, Can your holiday gift spy on you?, 2019.

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/can-your-holiday-gift-spy-you/

Valentino De Vries, Singer Natasha, Keller Michael, Krolik Aron,2018. Your Apps Know Where You Were Last Night, and They’re Not Keeping It Secret, NY Times article

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/10/business/location-data-privacy-apps.html

Spencer J.,PayPal reveals it shares customers’ data with more than 600 companies, 2018. The Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/04/27/paypal-reveals-shares-customers-data-600-companies/

David Lynch’s parody on iPhone advertisement translates how critically classic cinema makers perceive the use of new digital devices for screening movies, which were (most likely) meant to be viewed on big screens in movie theatres. For today’s blog, I have decided to interview one of Film Production students of the University of Brighton in order to understand how does new generation of future cinema makers perceive the use of new devices. My interview was based on Francesco Casetti’s book “The Lumière Galaxy : Seven Key Words for the Cinema to Come”, where he discusses the transformation of movie screening experience. He stresses the word experience, which is a complex term that involves confrontation of a subject with the world.It involves individual and social practices, but also the knowledge acquired in previous cases of experience which impacts one’s perception(Casetti, 2015, chapter 1, p.4) In chapter ‘The persistence of Cinema in a Post-Cinematic age’, he says: Compared with the “classical” era of studios and movie theatres, the “atmosphere” changes: Contact with a film is no longer signaled by a well-structured set of norms, constraints, and intentions, but it becomes easier and more direct.We can approach cinema under a variety of different circumstances. It is now free to relocate itself in new environments and into new devices( p. 207) So, does not it mean that cinema screening became more democratic in a way, where one can decide on when, where and on which device one wants to experience it? In 2019, spectator is not forced to go to the DVD-store to rent a movie anymore, the digital catalog on Netflix, Amazon Prime or other online movie streaming platform enables a user to choose a film without any particular effort. These new forms of distribution allow us to enjoy the seventh art whenever and wherever we want to. In Denson and Leyda’s “Post-cinema: Theorizing 21st-Century Film” , Francesco Casetti describes how relocation of cinema experience leads us to multitasking form of attention, where, for instance, a smartphone screen does not permit the spectator to isolate himself/herself from the environment. Visual conditions of mobile devices directly impact our screening experiences: there is also the size of the images, which on smart phones or tablets renders their spectacular nature hard to appreciate. (Casetti, 2016) Max Lee, Film Production student, affirms that if someone wants truly experience the cinema as an art form, he or she should go to the movie theatre rather than watching it on a portable digital device.(7:20)

According to Louis Baudry, the medium is a conceptual bridge which forms a unique cinematic experience of a constructed reality.(Dario Llinares, 2017) Hence, the outcome of cinematic experience depends on the device. Nevertheless, the audience’s behaviour during the screening sessions is not less important than spacial or technological aspects. In the interview (24.11.2019), Max confessed that he tends to use his mobile phone during academic film screening in auditorium. However, the quality of his attention also depends on the level of his interest in the topic of study, not on the screening medium or auditorium environment. It may suggest that film perception depends first of all on the spectator’s level of interest and does not fully depend on spacial or technological conditions. In his research ““Please Turn Your Phone On”: Analysing Outcomes of Interactive Spectatorship Using Social Media in the Cinema Space”, Dario Llinares suggests that the use of mobile devices with Internet connection impacted traditional academic screenings as a part of cinematographic studies. As a part of research project, D. Llinares implemented a second screen where tweets from students present in the auditorium were displayed live. Students shared their opinions on the movie as a parallel discussion forum. Some participants of these focus groups found the second screen system useful, since it helped them to contribute to the discussions, others felt distracted and excluded from the interaction. This project brought positive outcome regarding the level of engagement students showed during the sessions, but it also demonstrated a high level of distraction from the plot screening. Dr Llinares summed up that this survey stimulated students to evaluate their own experience of film screening and brought up a question of how to conceptualise cinema spectatorship in the digital age.(Llinares, 2017, p.563)

In the interview I asked Max if VR or interactive film, such as Black Mirror:Bandersnatch, would replace the classic film viewing, since these mediums involve viewers action/participation. He thinks that it would not replace traditional movie screening as such, but would develop on its own, as an independent art, which is close to a gaming experience.

Reference:

Casetti, Francesco. 2015. The Lumière Galaxy : Seven Key Words for the Cinema to Come. Columbia University Press, pp. 4,207

Casetti, Francesco, 2016. “The Relocation of Cinema” in Post-cinema: Theorising 21st-Century Film, Denson and Leyda (eds)

Llinares, Dario, 2017. “Please Turn Your Phone On”: Analysing Outcomes of Interactive Spectatorship Using Social Media in the Cinema Space, University of Brighton.

Is being creative exclusive? 

In his speech Why Creativity is the New Economy? in 2012, Richard Florida mentioned “we need to recognise that every single human being is creative and that’s what I call the new social compact.”(The RSA video source, 27:38) This lecture emphasises the importance of a creative class for the new economy of twenty-first century. But is being part of the creative class equally available to everyone?

In The Rise of the Creative Class (The Washington Monthly, May 2012, R. Florida) creative class is defined as “fast-growing, highly educated, and well-payed segment of the work force on whose efforts corporate profits and economic growth increasingly depend.”(p.17) It is no longer new, or rather, was never surprising that highly educated and well-payed are linked together: a university with excellent reputation guarantees a graduate employment in prestigious companies. According to Bourdieu (The Forms of Capital, 1986), institutionalised cultural capital, which includes academic qualifications, creates an important social inequality as any other form of cultural capital does. “With the academic qualification, a certificate of cultural competence which confers on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to culture, social alchemy produces a form of cultural capital which has a relative autonomy vis-à-vis its bearer and even vis-à-vis the cultural capital he effectively possesses at a given moment in time.” (Bourdieu, 1986) As soon as one possesses an evidence of institutionalised form of cultural capital, one can perceive it as a guarantee to maintain or to improve his or her economic capital. “This product of the conversion of economic capital into cultural capital establishes the value, in terms of cultural capital, of the holder of a given qualification relative to other qualification holders and, by the same token, the monetary value for which it can be exchanged on the labor market (academic investment has no meaning unless a minimum degree of reversibility of the conversion it implies is objectively guaranteed)” (Bourdieu, 1986).  These evidences of capitalistic social structure are still common nowadays. The prestige of education is still, or maybe more than ever, predefines our career paths and opportunities.  In this case, realisation of the fact that “every human-being is creative” is especially sore. In his book The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, And Failing The Middle Class — And What We Can Do About It, Richard Florida describes how the implementation of creative class benefited star-cities such as New York or San Francisco, but, in the same time, created a new sense of urbanism pushing other less prestigious classes away. Monopolisation of cities by creative classes generate the New Urban Crisis characterised by new wave of inequality and segregation.(P. Saunders, Forbes, 2017)

Florida mentioned that “every human-being is creative”, but do all of us have the same access to creative tools? Do public schools have the opportunity to embrace creativeness in their students by giving them access to digital creation tools, such as Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, et cetera? Do students who learn programs using old model of operating systems have the same skills as students with the latest technology access? Bourdieu mentioned the interdependence of cultural and economic capitals in 1986, in 2019 this phenomenon takes slightly different form and, nevertheless, persists. According to statistics, number of employees in the creative industry in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2018 increased from 1562 thousand to 2040 thousand(see the statistics Statista UK 2011-2018

) Creative industries gain more and more importance among other economic industries, so maybe it is time for public education to insert related subjects into basic school program and favour by these means democratic values and human rights to education. On the 13th of November, I run a radio show “Housemates” on Buzz Radio Brighton, where I asked my colleagues about their views on digital education in schools. Ms Gartner, Ms Clewett and Mrs Clewett agreed on the importance of digital creation related subjects in public schools. We all have right to a basic skill in digital programs, labour market is moving so why educational system remain the same?

Internet is a powerful network providing access to educational materials and information, therefore, one can claim that only by having this opportunity to go online, everyone is free to become a YouTube blogger, for instance. This utopian image of digital American dream does not work, unless there are three forms of capital: cultural, economic and social. One capital supports another, which makes of creative industries and digital production less democratic spheres as it might have seemed in the beginning of the internet era.

statistic_id284927_employment-in-the-creative-economy-of-the-united-kingdom–uk–2011-2018

https://www.thersa.org/discover/videos/event-videos/2012/09/why-creativity-is-the-new-economy

Online Communities and gender

Internet is a public and, unfortunately, an unprotected space. Everyone, including small social groups are exposed to critics, online harassement and trolling. Everyone I know, not only once in their lives, was exposed to an online trolling or heavy critics which sometimes were causing an important impact on their mood.

My generation is situated in-between two ‘eras’: we had this chance to know how to live without Internet, but we are also lucky to explore digital world the way younger generations do. I was born in Ukraine in 1992 and till the age of 11 I did not have any access to digital media. I was taking my time with Internet and learnt how to navigate on it when I was 15. That could be a reason why I was not aware of Internet trolls and was not properly introduced to the ‘internet hygiene’. I was consuming everything the Runet was feeding me with: memes, online communities on VK, etc. Clearly, as someone who just discovered the online world, I was euphoric about it and surprised at the same time. As someone who just moved from Ukraine to France, I did not make any difference between Ukrainians and Russians. As soon as you are abroad and do not speak the language of the country you moved to, anyone who speaks your language is already your friend. But on the Internet it was not the case. I started to notice how ‘unsecured’ VK was when I was reading the comments where Russians were shaming Ukrainians, Ukrainians were humiliating Russians and males stigmatised womanhood. Ten years after, the situation did not change a lot or even became worse. There are tons of groups shaming women, motherhood, calling girls ‘sluts’, ‘gold diggers’, et cetera. Fake whatsapp conversation screens, fake ‘true stories’ are spread all over the Runet, making women feel more vulnerable and unsecured. A misogynic behaviour on VK is also promoted in advertisements. During the World Cup 2018, Burger King Russia made an offer of 3 million RUB to those women, who get pregnant from a football player “in order to spread good sport genes in Russia for the new generations to come”. It is not the first advertisement from a big company in Russia which publishes a sexist commercial. VK is a governmental platform, so maybe it is an inappropriate appeal to increase country’s population using women as an incubator and encouraging prostitution?

As soon as you start a debate, you are almost sure that someone will comment pointing out your gender, in an active or in a passive agressive form. The hashtag #metoo is still not taken seriously on Runet and was heavily criticised. Patriarchal thinking in post Soviet countries still wants women to admit that when they are raped or beaten, it is all woman’s fault: she might have misbehaved or was provoking man with an inappropriate clothing to rape her.  There are hundreds of closed Russian-speaking groups on Facebook or other social media platforms, which are aimed to protect or to support abused women and groups aimed to fight sexism. Women are searching for a save place online to express their emotions and not to be gender shamed, so Internet became their relatively safe refuge. This opportunity of social networking where a participant can remain anonymous makes thousands of online communities grow and spread their ideas. But Internet is not that obvious than it can appear: if the group is closed, it does not mean that you are protected from cyber bulling or cyber sexism. As Laurie Penny mentions in her book Cybersexism (2003): “Any woman active online runs the risk of attracting these kinds of frantic hate-jerkers or worse”.

Organisers of a social anti-rape movement SlutWalk (2011) experienced targeted online trolling from a group of men who called themselves “masculinists”. Women activism is seen as harmful for men and provokes polemic discourses around. It creates a danger of being attacked in real life and not “only” experience an online harassement. Some participants of these groups may be scared and stop their engagement in feminist or anti-harassment groups. Some of them stay stoic and keep on fighting on both fronts, online and offline, for their ideas. “You deal with a lot of people who suddenly realise a bunch of women are getting together to ask for equality-‘fuck them!’ I am going to tell them that they are all fat. Personally, it was never an issue for me. (Gray 2014a)

As a matter of fact, woman shaming and cyber bulling is strongly connected with physical appearance shaming. “Too fat”, “too old”, “too skinny”, et cetera. When I searched for physical appearance shaming or body shaming, the first image showed on Google is a female figure. Fun fact or a reflection of ugly reality?

References:

Mendes, Kaitlynn, 2015. SlutWalk : Feminism, Activism and Media: ch.7

Penny, Laurie, 2013. Cybersexism. Bloomsbury Publishing

Beswick Emma, 2018, Sexism and misogyny called out at first World Cup since #MeToo

https://www.euronews.com/2018/06/21/sexism-and-misogyny-called-out-at-first-world-cup-since-metoo

Thank you God, that I was not born as khokhol (negative connotation term for a Ukrainian)

I am a Mum VK group against unpleasant behaviour of women experiencing motherhood

number of groups sharing this thematic

Thank you,God, that I am not a Moskal (negative connotation term for a Russian) translated from Ukrainian