The future of mobile phone technology

Mobile phone technology has come a very long way allowing people to not only call and text message friends, but to email, surf the web, take photos and listen to music. The convergent nature of the device will only improve as technology does. We may begin to see higher quality cameras on smart phones that will phase out the need for any form of low-middle range cameras and video recorders.

The introduction of Siri on the iPhone 4S allows us to have a conversation with our phones and ask it questions. Being able to ask about the weather, to dictate messages and to ask it to set reminders are only a few of the voice commands possible. This feature is only going to develop and improve which could see people interacting with their mobile phones purely through voice commands. The need to search for things by going on to Safari and then typing the subject is a thing of the past.

Image source

Voice commands may also cease to exist; smart phone users may eventually undergo a procedure which would allow mobile phones to perform actions based on our thinking process instead of by speaking out loud. The messages would then be sent to our brain in response. The smart phone may also become more and more connected with our daily lives. There may not be the need to carry around a handbag with car keys, house keys and a wallet with cards and cash as all of these objects will be combined into the mobile phone. The technology that the Holden Cruze uses for example includes a push start button and the key has a sensor (instead of inserting a key) which may be implemented into our smart phones. Instead of carrying around many credit and store cards this information could also be loaded onto our phone. ‘Touch and Go’ software that VISA has enabled could generate a similar phenomenon where we can tap our mobile device to pay for items and to collect loyalty rewards from stores. The nature of this technology could then see the need for carrying cold hard cash to be over. This idea is supported by society’s fixation with internet banking as it saves time and energy and this new notion simply expands on the concept.

Image source

Having to avingHcarry around a mobile phone can be     annoying and the issues of loss and damage to them occur quite often. A device similar to a wristwatch would be a much more convenient and easily accessible option for phone users. Taking this idea even further, the device may be implanted in our bodies somewhere possibly in our wrists and they come to life when tapped, but are undetected until interaction with the phone is needed. This notion really expands on Donna Haraway’s Cyborg manifesto as we have all become cyborgs being so attached to our mobiles mentally and soon it may be physically as well. 

What is a second life and what impact does it have on our 'real life'?

Second life is an online virtual world where users interact with each other through avatars. They can also explore, meet other people, participate in activities and create and trade virtual property and services with each other. It is a prime example of Bauldrillard’s theory that we would begin to experience life in hyperreality and experience simulations rather than reality. The site currently has about a million active users proving just how popular the application has become. Meadow’s claims that shared experiences create a sense of reality could also not be more poignant in this scenario. Even though users are sitting behind a computer screen not actually dancing in a bar for example, this virtual action has become relatively ‘real’ as other people are witnessing the action and maybe even taking part themselves. Second life allows people who may not feel confident enough or who do not have the money to go out and dance in a nightclub, to experience a simulation in a virtual landscape. It may not be entirely the same experience but as research has revealed, people respond to interactive technology much more than was ever thought. Being able to personalise the avatar and live in a world where the user can be anyone they want removes previous constraints that users may have in the real world, causing the nature of second life to be very enticing.



Image source



A story on Four Corners about Second Life showed various creators and people involved with the virtual world being interviewed alongside a small image of their avatar on screen. The interesting point that this raised was that each individual had basically kept some of their features, the ones that they liked and had improved on others, the ones that they must not have. For example one man was bald with a beard and overweight, his avatar was muscular, had hair on his head and still kept the same beard. The virtual world features maninly attractive avatars; reinforcing the consumer driven society of the first life and taking it into the second life. It is obvious that no one would chose to be ugly but is this obsession with appearance going to have a detrimental affect on the user as they will realistically never be able to look as their avatar does and force them to distance themselves from their first life more and more? 

Image source

There is a potential for the software of Second Life to be used for positive change in todays society, in relation to online learning. A real problem with online and distance education is that there is no sense of community and students often feel isolated and disconnected from peers. This technology has the ability for students to attend a virtual lectures and tutorials and engage in discussions with one another and with their tutor. It would allow people who live in rural communities to be more connected and be able to overcome initial geographic constraints.

The mobile phone... not all good news.

Donna Haroway’s essay, ‘A Cyborg Manifesto’ states that we are all ‘theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organisms; in short we are cyborgs,’ she is arguing that the machine (mobile phone in this instance) has become a part of us. Basing my argument in this notion it is clear that our living patterns and behaviors have altered due to this technology. Mobile phones have caused young people to become less self-reliant. Instead of solving an issue themselves they will call someone else for ideas and approval before going ahead with anything; it is too easy for them to rely on this technology. Texting has simultaneously caused younger people to become lazy; it allows them to keep in contact with one another but to the extent that they don’t have to put in any real effort. It allows people to avoid real conversation and often doesn’t entail social niceties. Texting slang is another issue as it allows younger people to avoid the use of proper English, whilst encouraging spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.



Image source



Mobile phones have enabled parents to constantly monitor their children. Children have lost their sense of freedom and alone time as they can be contacted by their parents 24/7.

From a business perspective mobiles have also had a negative impact. Employees are constantly required to be available as they can be contacted at any time of the day or night. This has created a consistent blurring of boundaries between work and play. In the past people could not be contacted with such ease, meaning that the 2IC would have to step up and make decisions for them. People deserve a break and shouldn’t have to be always available. At the same time industries do not have the same control over their employees as the mobile phone allows workers to be checking their emails, surfing the internet or shopping on eBay while they are supposed to be working and there is no real means of tracking this unless there are cameras installed in workplaces.



Image source



Mobile phones have been introduced and available to the masses at such a rapid pace that it seems we have not developed many rules on phone etiquette. People growing up with the technology of smart phones have become rude and they often don’t even realise that what they are doing is inappropriate. Checking Facebook on their mobile while out at a social event is not polite, just as speaking on the phone whilst being served by a salesperson isn’t either.

It also appears that mobile phone users have become addicted to their phones.

Sherry Turkle’s book ‘Alone Together’ exemplifies the idea of mobile phones causing everyone to be always on and never alone as they are living in a virtual space. If this connection is ever lost due to the phone running out of batteries or becoming misplaced for any amount of time this can cause a lot of anxiety and stress for mobile phone users.

Social Media's power to influence the young

Image source

Social media has the power in Australia to attract an audience towards politics that wouldn’t normally have any interest at all. This is in reference specifically to the younger generation known as Gen Y. With young people already using social networking sites such as Facebook it is not very difficult for politicians to have a strong presence and be able to connect with these people via the internet. Simply slapping things up on a page and contributing every now and then isn’t enough however. For example Tony Abbott has set up a blog but he hasn’t actually written anything on it since December 2011. This discourages people from wanting to visit his blog as it seems unprofessional and doesn’t account for the latest issues. If politicians aren’t going to write the blogs themselves, (which is highly likely) then they need to have specifically trained PR people maintaining such blogs to keep up a positive image. Posting things just in the lead up to an election is not enough; the public wants to hear reactions or responses to issues all throughout the year.



Image source



The KEVIN07 campaign had a profound impact on influencing many younger voters through Kevin Rudd’s utilization of social media. This was the first time I personally saw people my age actively pursue an interest in Australian politics. Young people were buying the merchandise, wearing the tee shirts and campaigning for Kevin Rudd like they had not done for anyone else before. It was through a central website that combined many elements of the Web 2.0. It offered a video channel on YouTube and links to social networking sites like Facebook but also a campaign blog to allow people to comment and react to posts. Subscribing to ‘K-mail’ also gave people access to regular campaign updates and made them feel involved. 



Rheingold argues that the political public sphere, crowd sourcing, open source production and the blogosphere are things that didn’t exist a few years ago and are now creating political and cultural power due to the active participation of many people. This bottom up led participation has changed the way political information is dissected and understood. This also removes the media driven aspect of politics and creates a landscape relatively free from censorship.   

Image source



However the problem still remains in Australia of compulsory voting, as people who have no interest in politics vote for a party that they may know nothing about, but they choose it for example, because of the appearance of its leader. It is not democratic to force people to vote and it may increase the number of donkey votes and informal votes. If voting was left up to the people who were informed and understood what they were voting for, then the result would be an a lot more accurate reflection of the public’s opinions.



Produsage...? What is that and does it have any limitations?

The older model of content generation, which saw a one-way process from producer to distributor to consumer allows for a very limited feed back loop and doesn’t apply to all content generation today. Social media has allowed and facilitated many voices to be heard by enabling communication among as many individuals that want to be involved. Axel Bruns has termed this new model of content generation as ‘Produsage.’ The topic seemed a bit difficult to actually grasp so outlining its key characteristics seemed appropriate.

Produsage has four key characteristics:

-It moves away from a specific person or group of people as producers to a much broader group of individuals. There is no limit to who can create content; everyone has the potential to be involved.

- Nothing is ever finished; everything created is ongoing and continually revisited to keep the information as current and accurate as possible.

- Produsage is based on engaging various individuals who do not see ownership as the motivating factor but instead merit.

- All produsers frequently cross between leaders, participants, and users.

Visual representation of the way 'Produsage' occurs
Image source

Wikipedia is a good example of produsage as anyone can contribute to the page and the page can constantly be updated and altered. People who do revise pages do not seek any ownership and their role may change from editing a page to actually seeking information and using the page as a source.

Henry Jenkins argues that because no one knows everything and everyone knows something, people can combine their skills and resources through a form of ‘participatory culture.’ This is very apparent in produsage as people who are leaders or have knowledge in one area are able to relay such information and share it with others. This kind of ‘collective meaning making ‘is starting to change the way religion, education, law, politics, advertising, and even the military operate’.

Medical forum
Image source

There are limitations with produsage. The initial problem is that information may not be 100% accurate all the time. There is an issue of people who purposefully go on to sites like Wikipedia with the intention of adding information that is untrue or bogus. This could also occur on medical user generated web forums, which may have a much greater impact on the user. For example, if someone contributes information that plays down the significance of a symptom or on the other hand puts far too much emphasis on one, this could cause someone to dismiss the symptom or place a great degree of unnecessary stress and anxiety on them. On Wikipedia this would be counteracted eventually as there are always people verifying such information, but people may be less likely to alter medical scenarios unless they are fully qualified or have been in the situation themselves. Other issues lie in the area of copyrighting and ownership. If everyone is able to contribute to a never-ending pool of knowledge then who eventually takes possession of the information? Specifically on YouTube consumers are the ones producing all the content and uploading it to the site, without them the site would have no content, but it is Google who actually benefiting. 

Government Transparency Vs National Security

Wikileaks is a not-for profit organisation that allows anonymous sources to send information to. This is information they feel should be in the public domain and is in the public’s best interest to be known. The organisation is a platform for whistleblowers to be heard and plays a very important role as an anti corruption tool and one that supports government transparency. The notion of government transparency versus national security is a fine line, as no one quite knows which is more important. 



Image source

A positive example of government transparency through the use of ICT’s is the US government’s creation of websites that allow people to view data related to expenditure, in order to promote government monitoring of spending. This gives everyday citizens a means to access such information and allows them to be more involved and informed about what is going on, making democracy work better.

Internet filtering however plays a major role in the success of a government’s transparency. If people do not have the ability to access information that they feel passionate about or that which is in their interests to know, how can people be making informed decisions? There are currently more than three-dozen nations, mostly in East Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, and central Africa that filter access to the Internet. China is an example of a country with strict limitations on Internet censorship; they prohibit access to many social networking sites like Facebook. This could then in turn be restricting Chinese citizen’s rights to discuss and debate issues. 



As defined by Jenkins this ‘collective meaning making’ that people are taking part in within popular culture is changing the way politics, law and education operates. Many people today do not just listen to the Channel 9 nightly news and take its word as gospel; they seek out alternative forms of media and want to look at the facts for themselves and discuss them with others. Wikileaks publishing the original source documents permits citizens to do this by witnessing exactly what the stories and articles are basing their information on. Along with citizen journalism this is increasingly becoming a way for people to look at things from a perspective that is not going to be constrained by mainstream media agendas or gatekeepers. Blogging is also an important social media tool that facilitates such unrestrained voices to be heard. The media may not be doing its job if it is not questioning government and facilitating this transparency to occur.

On the other hand however should the government and organisations have the right to some form of privacy and secrecy? If everyone was able to see all aspects of government documents this could be aiding terrorist or criminal activities to occur. Military plans and activities need to be kept a secret as this could put a country at risk if their enemies knew what they were planning. This could affect not only military personal but it could also impact their families back at home. Documentation of information relating to foreign policy negotiations also needs to be kept private, as the other countries shouldn’t know all the inner workings and motivations behind specific policies. Information that may be used in a damaging way by a specific person or group should also be kept secret, as this could have a detrimental effect on their lives. 

Image source

Are there extremists on our beaches or in our political parties?

When looking into extremist groups one initially relates the concept to predominantly American based groups like the Anti-Semitic neo-Nazi skinheads, the anti government extremists or the environmental and animal rights extremists. Ideas of terrorism and suicide bombers also spring to mind but what about the ‘local surfers’ who were involved in the 2005 Cronulla beach riots?

Image source  

The day the riots started local surfers who were largely of anglo-celtic decent displayed a recent rise in patriotism. This included wearing the Australian flag by wrapping it over their bodies, hanging it from balconies and cars and displaying temporary tattoos of the Southern Cross and the union jack. These acts of nationalism only worsened as they paired such actions with hate messages and abuse towards the Lebanese community, essentially claiming that they wanted their beach but by using various profanities and derogatory racial phases.

These surfers had resorted to violence and a racial stance that caused a great deal of embarrassment for many Australians.  The fact is that we are a multicultural nation and essentially are all immigrants, aside from the aboriginal community seemed to have been displaced in the minds of these young surfers.  

According to Gardener’s (1997) definition of extremism:

It is described as a dogmatic intolerance, expressed mildly or violently, and inclines toward an inflexible obedience to an accepted authority, shaped by a common ideology or sense of group unity. 

Based on this definition the surfers can definitely be seen as carrying out extremist’s acts as they were united by a common intolerance towards the Lebanese community and they engaged in violence towards their goal of trying to eradicate these people from their beaches.

Image of people in support of Austrlalia First party policies.
Image source 

It appears that on further investigation into Australia and its racial prejudice we have a registered federal political party that freely admit to wanting to ‘abolish multiculturalism’ known as the Australia First Party. The party was actually linked to the Cronulla riots and was found to be sending mobilization messages to members of the community. The party states that ‘the present government's policy on multi-culturalism is turning Australia into a nation of tribes and, if not stopped, will continue to erode social cohesion and fuel social tension.’ 

I do not agree with this statement I think the diverse range of cultures in Australia is something that makes our nation great. Visit inner city Melbourne and smell the aromas from the Yum Cha in China Town, to the vast amount of Italian homemade pasta and pizza restaurants and to the Spanish Tapas bars to name just a few. All of these cultures can come together and their cuisines be shared by one and all. The party’s policy on immigration also seems fairly warped ‘Our policy on immigration is "zero net" which means the number of immigrants we will allow in each year will equal the number of people permanently leaving Australia per year.’ With such a vast land that is undeveloped why can’t we help to provide for people who are born into less fortunate families and to remove them from areas under constant danger?

Whether this party can be labeled as an extremist group is difficult to decide? They do seem to have some fairly radical ideas and they do appear to want to get rid of multicultural communities, which could show ties to such example of neo-Nazis but they are not going as far as planning any terrorist attacks or creating such violence. They were involved in the Cronulla Riots to some degree but exactly how much influence the party has we will never really know, sending messages to gain attention isn’t the same as party members performing specific acts of violence. They do use the Internet to spread messages and try and recruit people to vote for them but not in the same way that extremist groups like Stormfront for example do to spread white extremist pride messages to incite such hate.