In my opinion there are two levels of communication. Level one is human-human or human-computer I would describe this as reactive. Level two is when this becomes interactive, this can possibly be described as human-computer-computer-human or maybe human to human through the use of computers. Interacting with computers is today a vital part of how we communicate to other people, for example text messages, emails or tweeting etc.
"Interactivity is the degree to which, in a communication process, each message is related to the previous messages exchanged"
"Interactive, when a message is related to a number of previous messages and to the relationship between them"
(Rafaeli, 1988).
My understanding of this is that each 'message' is a communication e.g. pressing the right buttons to input text to a computer is one communication, posting this to a blog is another communication, reading text from a blog is also a communication, all the comments left about the blog are communications, responding to one or more of those comments, clicking the like button, posting a blog in response, video responses on Youtube, watching the video in the first place, the communications go on and on on! and they can all interact with eachother because of technology.
The internet or cyberspace or whatever you want to call it has made immersing yourself in media a much more interactive experience - social networking allows us to easily give feedback on everything from news to TV shows. For example on YouTube users can comment on videos, choose to 'like' or 'dislike' and even create and leave videos in response, you can air your views, leave your opinions and argue eachother's comments with a certain amount of anonymity. This anonymous feedback allows the producers of the videos to see what the public thinks and also get responses that are a lot more bluntly honest, allowing them the kind information they need to improve on future projects.
The gap between consumers and the producers is narrowing and crossing over, consumers can be producers as well as vice versa and can all comment, like or dislike eachothers uploaded content, we interact in a way that has never before been possible.
This interaction allows for producers to create videos, articles etc. that appeal to their target audience and can help make huge profits, which means that both the producer and consumer get what they're after.
However it can also lead to irrelevant, pointless or just plain stupid responses. Often offensive, ignorant or narrow minded comments are left usually for the sole purpose of getting a reaction without any real repercussion. I find these usually start a midly entertaining dialogue with insults thrown around and the original perpetrator's ignorance usually being called out and backed against by the majority of the other users leaving comments in response. The comments may even have simply been offensive or stereotypical jokes socially accepted amongst the users friends but that are generally taboo in our wider society.
However, when the producer is not a multimillion pound company but just a normal person writing a personal blog or uploading videos to Youtube, the things said are often hurtful, abusive and can cause more damage than perhaps intended. These are more often than not things people would never dream of saying in the world outside of the interactivity made possible by technology. But is that just the risk you take when you upload a video etc.? Is that a fair price to pay for interactivity?
No comments:
Post a Comment