CyberSolutions – an update of the tech that is changing our world


Future Cultures

If you’ve read my previous post (which, to be honest, I’d totally understand if you hadn’t), you’d know that for my digital artefact I’m looking into the way that advancements in technology are being used around the world to solve important problems. This post is my place to summarise and your place (beloved reader) to understand the scope of the project, where it’s currently at and why it’s important. Basically, read on to discover a summary of CyberSolutions: tech used for good not evil.

Reasoning behind project:
On a slight aside, my favourite thing about my university degree is the flexibility I have throughout my assignments: I am given the space to research a topic of my choosing within most subjects. As such, I like to centre my assignments around my (hopeful) career. As someone with deep passions in social justice and a deep hope to contribute towards social justice within my career, I…

View original post 1,523 more words


CyberPoverty: technology and the divide paradox

Future Cultures

“With technology, we’ve never been closer together”

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard that sentence in my life. I’m sure you, whoever is reading this, will agree. And to an extent, sure, it’s truthful.  Besides the obvious opposition to it of, ‘oh but our phones also make us disconnected and push us apart’, I challenge you to think critically of this statement. Importantly, who do you visualise when you read ‘we’? We as in you and your friends? Family? People on the other side of the world? How about people in countries where electricity is non-existent, let alone Snapchat dog filters?

Sure, technology may allow us to learn about all corners of the world, to see things and places that would remain invisible if not for technology. It may allow us to hear about the inequalities happening around the world and the people who are struggling. It…

View original post 1,095 more words

Viewing myself on an Asian dating show

Digital Asia

In my previous post, I proposed my individual project of examining Asian culture through dating shows and recorded my initial thoughts and assumptions of these shows, specifically, If You Are The One, a Chinese dating show where one man attempts to impress 24 women. To delve deeper into the understanding of this culture, I’m now attempting to reflect upon, analyse and interpret this experience within its broader sociocultural context using an autoethnographic research approach.

Chang observes that the uniqueness of autoethnography comes from the way it “transcends mere narration of self to engage in cultural analysis and interpretation”, setting it apart from things such as memoirs and autobiography. It is not about focusing on just self, but finding understanding of others through understanding your own assumptions and beliefs. For my project, I am not focusing on my own dating experience; I am finding an understanding of Asian culture by…

View original post 841 more words

The brutal and hilarious world of Asian dating

Digital Asia

Most of you reading this will know about television shows such as The Bachelor and X-Factor. Some of you might even be huge fans, with your Foxtel IQ memory being used up by countless hours of women crying over one man and people who can’t possibly think their talented making a fool of themselves on national television.

Personally, I’ve never been a huge fan of dating and talent shows, but my god has that changed. I have recently been made aware of the single greatest dating show I’ve ever seen. It’s calledIf You Are The One and it’s so great. Brutal, full of surprises and so opposite to every Western dating norm that I am used to, If You Are The One is a cultural phenomenon. It has bridged an understanding of Chinese dating and partner types through the use of entertainment, but the real understanding comes from…

View original post 763 more words

Heading back into the man’s game

Digital Asia

Understanding my assumptions throughout It’s A Man’s Game:

Using our own culture and experiences to understand another is something that we all do on a regular basis; autoethnography puts this into an academic setting where we can use personal aspects such as perspective and opinion to contribute towards research to develop a deeper understanding. I attempted to tackle this unnecessarily-difficult-to-say word and the meaning behind it by recording my personal experience of Korean culture – my thoughts during the documentary State of Play. State of Play is a documentary that looks into the eSports profession in South Korea. It is centered not so much around the actual gaming, but more so around the hysteria that exists within the gaming industry: the fans, the hours of training, the huge stadiums, the money, the sacrifices the gamers make and, overall, the intense and fierce nature of the eSports scene. For…

View original post 572 more words

It’s a man’s game — Digital Asia

My main thought during State of Play: woah these are some dedicated and passionate boy gamers; woah those are some dedicated and passionate fangirls. State of Play is a documentary that looks into the eSports profession in South Korea. It is centered not so much around the actual gaming, but more so around […]

via It’s a man’s game — Digital Asia

Was meat ever alive? – dissociation of animals and food

Think about what you have eaten in the past few days … unless you are a vegetarian or vegan, that thought most likely included some form of animal. Which animal? Cow, chicken, pig? How about dog, cat or budgie? Of course not, because that would be severely f**ked up. Whilst I agree that eating animals we view as domesticated is grossly wrong, I struggle to understand why. Most of us will happily play with any dog we see on the street before walking another 100 metres down the road, reading a menu filled with words such as juicy and crispy and ordering a burger without even thinking about where the meat comes from. We accept animal cruelty laws and are appalled when they are broken, but we don’t do the same for animals raised for food. This is demonstrating our extraordinary capacity to dissociate – “Having reduced the animal to nothing more than the products manufactured from its carcass, we manage to avoid confronting the concept of its having a life; and thus, we need take no interest in its quality of life.” With this lack of interest in quality of life comes a lack of knowledge about the meat industry as a whole. A lack of knowledge about the treatment of the animals and a lack of knowledge about the damage the agriculture industry is doing to our planet (a whole other issue in itself). The industry, knowing that exposure would lead to many people reconsidering consuming meat and thus a decline in profit, maintains a level of secrecy from the public. In Food, Inc, Eric Schlosser refers to this effort as a “deliberate veil…that’s dropped between us and where our food is coming from.” Food, Inc is just one of many documentaries that have surfaced in the past decade about the meat industry, attempting to lift this ‘deliberate veil’ and get people to associate the actual living animal to the food on their plate.


The most successful of the documentaries discussed above are the ones that seem to employ the use of anthropomorphizing animals.
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human emotions, characteristics and intelligence to animals. It includes giving animals emotions that humans experience such as happiness or sadness, dressing animals in clothes or having them engage in human activities – “The more “human” we perceive the animal to be, the easier it is for us to relate to it and develop empathy.” By these documentaries employing this technique, it allows us to mentally picture their suffering by putting ourselves in the animal’s position. But can this be viewed as a form of manipulation? By changing these animals into something we can personally identify with, are we being led to believe something in order for us to take action?

My opinion? Yes it is manipulation, but I am all for it. Harmless Disney movies which give animals human-like features for entertainment are great. But, documentaries which give typically less-loved animals human-like features in order to stop people from treating them completely inhumanely and disgusting are even greater. As an environmentalist and vegetarian, I can’t get enough of these documentaries – they are actually the reason I became a vegetarian (in particular, Cowspiracy – an absolute must-watch).

Even though we may be being manipulated by anthropomorphism, it is us, consumers, who hold the most power. Knowing how these animals are being treated, and having bridged a personal connection to them, we have a few options, according to Emily Fox: “We can seek out and purchase meat from companies that treat their animals properly, or we can choose to avoid meat entirely. We can try to forget ever having learned about America’s meat industry, or we can be conscious to remember. At the very least, it is important to consider the meat we eat, and the life that was sacrificed to sustain another’s. In order to be a culture that values life, remembering where our meat comes from is at least a step in the right direction.”

Further Information:

This clip takes meat-eaters to the actual source of their food and prevents them from dissociating their food and animals. If you can’t kill the animal, why do you let someone else do it for you?


Exploiting the vulnerable: poverty porn

The video above highlights and mocks a dominating issue in mainstream media across the Western world – poverty porn. Whilst featuring too many similarities to regular porn – wildly exploitative, dripping in disease and with the same actions happening in each video – poverty porn has been defined as “any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor’s condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers or increasing charitable donations or support for a given cause”.


Like the above image, there is a definite stereotype evident within today’s perception of humanitarian work. Hunger, poverty, crime, disease – most campaigns follow the same basic structure: define the problem, determine the cause, make moral judgments, suggest remedies and predict likely results. But these images often create apathy, rather than action, offering simple monetary solutions to complex problems that may do more harm than good. The campaigns pull on our heartstrings and compel us to pull out our wallets, an action that does not go unappreciated; but, the stereotypes that emerge from such campaigns can be seen as “deforming reality”, as it “portrays the image of an impotent society, entirely dependent on other Western societies to survive, as well as being overly voyeuristic.” The use of poverty porn to label an entire country as deprived makes the audience assume, falsely so, that the whole country shares the same story. If the only videos we see of Africa are that of extreme poverty, we might start to believe that all of Africa is suffering, but “not only is that totally outrageous, it’s offensive” since “Africa is made up of 54 diverse countries, countries with both prosperity and poverty.

Exploitation of the poor?

My question is that if we are publicly exposing people’s misery all over our media, are we not invading their privacy, without full consent, purely for financial gain? Authors Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert write that the helper and the helped define poverty entirely differently: “Most North American audiences define poverty by physical suffering and a lack of material resources, while the poor define their condition psychologically and emotionally. They use words like shame, inferiority, powerlessness, humiliation, fear, hopelessness, depression, social isolation and voicelessness.” So, if those who are suffering describe poverty as being shameful, isn’t poverty porn exploiting those who do not necessarily have the desire to be exposed?

A simple solution for a complex problem

Poverty porn, moreover, fails in producing a deep understanding of the issue of poverty as well as the needed structural changes that must occur in order to effectively address it; rather, poverty porn just provides temporary relief by offering material resources obtained through a simple phone call or monthly donation. “Poverty porn makes a complex human experience understandable, consumable and easily treatable.” Sure, many people living in poverty may not have enough food to eat, and so food aid would be greatly appreciated – but this is not going to break them out of poverty, this is not a sustainable solution. Poverty porn puts a blanket over the huge, harder to solve issues such as a lack of access to education and healthcare. Obviously, poverty porn is hugely successful in gathering donations – clearly there is a reason it is so popular – and the well-meaning collectors have done a lot of good, but it leaves behind the perception that the donors are the only ones with the ability to make a difference. Nothing is done to empower and walk alongside the poor to transform their own communities and produce sustainable solutions to make a long-term, widespread impact without enforcing our own ideas of betterment.



Further information:
a good example of a successful campaign video

Using the Internet till the cows come home

Screen Shot 2015-10-23 at 11.51.12 pmThe above image, taken from this prezi by Teodor Mitew, is something that really surprised me when I first read it – “the number of things connected to the Internet exceeded the number of people on earth.” Perhaps when I think about it more, it makes perfect sense for the number of connections to the Internet to supersede the number of humans, but I suppose it is just a little bit frightening to truly realise how inferior we are to the power of the Internet.
This concept is known as the Internet of Things (IoT) – put simply, any object connected to the Internet. But in a more complex, conceptual form, it is an environment where objects transcend their materiality, becoming sociable, self-disclosing data streams. When I say ‘any object connected to the Internet’, I really mean this. Not just computers or technology, but animals, cars, clothing, fridges … you name it. Most interestingly, I’ve found that the Internet, or more specifically, wireless sensors, can now allow cows to communicate with humans. Well almost. The sensors are able to notify farmers when cows are either sick or pregnant, making it a lot easier to take care of cattle and saving a lot of time and money. Each cow transmits about 200mb of data each year. The meme below explores this data sharing, highlighting the way the Internet has bridged a connection between so many networks.


It is incredible to see how far the Internet of Things has come so far and we are only just getting started. I personally can’t wait to be able to speak to animals.

Or are the preconceptions true?

This post follows on from my previous post which spoke of the positives of hacktivism and the power it can have in our society. However, this post focuses on the negative aspects that may come with hacktivisim and what happens when groups use the power of hacking to do harm. LulzSec is an offshoot group from Anonymous and rose to power in 2011 – the five members were Hector Xavier Monsegur, Ryan Clearly, Ryan Ackroyd, Jake Davis and Mustafa Al-Bassam. They were infamous for causing havoc online and laughing at security – hence, the fitting title. It wasn’t until the leader of the team, Monsegur, was forced to turn on his group as an informant that each member was discovered and arrested and the group disjoined. For an in-depth insight into LulzSec and their actions, click here. But I have put a few points into the infographic below to lay down the basics of the negatives aspects of hacktivism as opposed to the positives that we have already seen.

Screen Shot 2015-10-23 at 8.23.56 pm