Virtual Revolution

Crispy · February 2010

<div class="IPBDescription">BBC + Aleks Krotoski + Tech Talk = Win</div>It's basically a well-put together series on the rise of the internet, virtual worlds, etc. presented by Aleks Krotoski (presenter of Bits and Thumb Bandits on UK TV and also interesting techie-academic type who used to write for the Guardian Tech section, still writes its Games Blog and is also author of interesting papers like <i>Chicks and Joysticks: An exploration of women and gaming</i> and <i>Social Influence in Second Life: Social Network and Social Psychological Processes in the Diffusion of Belief and Behaviour on the Web</i>. It's BBC-produced so pulls in some really good commentators and takes a fairly objective standpoint.

What the show's about (trailer):
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/flSwCJ8BydI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/flSwCJ8BydI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>

I wasn't aware of it being on (don't really watch TV anymore because the quality is so ish) but caught the 3rd episode last night and it was pretty damn good. Except for how the shots gradually devolved into shots of Aleks Krotoski walking along beaches with wind through her hair while her VO talks tech, which was a bit bizarre. Sort of very softcore geekpr0n if you ask me!

This episode was about the cost we pay Google, Facebook and the likes for their free services, with some interesting questions raised. It had a very good selection of soundbytes from experts from various companies (yes, Schmidt and Gates were in there and feature heavily throughout the series). I've been more aware of the topic ever since I read a piece by <a href="http://www.schneier.com/" target="_blank">Bruce Schneier</a> in reaction to Eric Schmdt's 'hyprocritical oath' last December.

This morning, I found it a little bit creepy that (after not logging in for days) when I booted up Gmail I had new Google Buzz waiting for me. I was relieved to find I'd already opted out of Google AdWords and now have opted out of personalised ads from not just Google but other companies, with the NAI cookie blocker.

Anyway, back to the series, has anyone been watching this?

For anyone who missed it, I think the iPlayer works for all countries outside of the UK.

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qn37q/hd/The_Virtual_Revolution_The_Great_Levelling/" target="_blank">Episode 1: The Great Levelling</a>
<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qsbvv" target="_blank">Episode 2: Enemy of the State</a>
<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qx4vy/The_Virtual_Revolution_The_Cost_of_Free/" target="_blank">Episode 3: The Cost of Free</a>

Corporal_Fortier · February 2010

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Feb 14 2010, 05:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>For anyone who missed it, I think the iPlayer works for all countries outside of the UK.</div>
I guess not.. at least not in Canada (damn, we even keep the Queen's face on our money and she won't let us watch her TV! :p)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you.</div>

Sounds interesting though, I would have liked to see it.

Chris0132 · February 2010

It doesn't sound any different from the usual alarmist crap you get in this kind of show, it gets a bunch of people to be opinionated at the camera, asks a bunch of rhetorical questions, fails to give any sort of accurate impression of anything (because obviously how can you cover any subject in any degree of worthwhile detail in an hour on the television? Even educational shows like bill nye or similar programmes for kids only give the briefest breakdown of something and their entire point is to simply present facts) and it doesn't come to any conclusion. It doesn't even give you enough to form your <i>own</i> conclusion, so it doesn't inform, it doesn't entertain because it's so painfully patronising, and it doesn't even have a bunch of comedy sketches thrown in like penn and teller or something (which also doesn't do anything useful but it's at least funny to watch).

Really if you want to learn about the internet, use the internet, go read a bunch of websites, you'll learn how the internet works because you'll be using it, and you'll have access to far more information than you can get from the TV which is always out of date and full of silly political nonesense. You'll realise that nobody agrees about anything and maybe even notice that alarmism is silly because nothing ever comes of it ever.

Draco_2k · February 2010

I see Britain continues to hog all the good television still.

Hell, a (what seems like) an objective look at the Internet, from the media?.. Didn't think I'd ever see the day. And here I honestly figured Internet is solely made of gaming, porn, spam and gaming porn spam.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Feb 14 2010, 01:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd already opted out of Google AdWords and now have opted out of personalised ads from not just Google but other companies, with the NAI cookie blocker.</div>
Why?..

Crispy · February 2010

I know you can get iPlayer on the Wii and PS3, so you could try there to see if region restrictions are relaxed (it would be on 360 too but the BBC refuses to add it so long as there is any charge attached to it - e.g. Gold Membership). Currently only 1 iPlayer episode is on the Wii (curiously, episode 3). Might be worth a look.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 14 2010, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>stuff</div>So you haven't watched it, but you still feel you are justified in judging it? Give me 5 examples of 'this kind of show' and I will tell you how it isn't that kind of show. FYI it was a very balanced discussion of whether the cost of 'free' online services is transparent. It didn't attempt to provide any answers, it was the sort of show where you are expected to come to your own conclusions. From your comments it sounds like you assume it's some sort of soapbox show, which it isn't. The presenter shares her own opinions, but not exclusively or dominantly, and both sides are voiced.

For example, one consideration I found interesting was that, on the topic of 'recommendations', the more people shop online, the more these recommendations seem to fit your profile. But the more space is devoted to showing you products you are likely to be interested in, the less you are subjected to less popular products (which may be just as interesting to you). So the more this happens, the more you become a demographic as opposed to an individual.

I think the general feeling seemed to be less alarmist and more one of caution. Something like "the free services provided on the internet are great, but they come at a price, and it's important not to ignore that price or let it go unchecked."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 14 2010, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753111"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Why?..</div>Because I don't get any value from personalised advertising based on my internet browsing history, and it is apparently optional when using Gmail, and I can still use Gmail for free even if I opt out. I only buy what I need and I ignore the ads anyway. Moreover, in general I would prefer to limit the amount of my own personal information changing hands on the web.

Chris0132 · February 2010

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Feb 14 2010, 08:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753158"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>So you haven't watched it, but you still feel you are justified in judging it? Give me 5 examples of 'this kind of show' and I will tell you how it isn't that kind of show. FYI it was a very balanced discussion of whether the cost of 'free' online services is transparent. It didn't attempt to provide any answers, it was the sort of show where you are expected to come to your own conclusions. From your comments it sounds like you assume it's some sort of soapbox show, which it isn't. The presenter shares her own opinions, but not exclusively or dominantly, and both sides are voiced.

For example, one consideration I found interesting was that, on the topic of 'recommendations', the more people shop online, the more these recommendations seem to fit your profile. But the more space is devoted to showing you products you are likely to be interested in, the less you are subjected to less popular products (which may be just as interesting to you). So the more this happens, the more you become a demographic as opposed to an individual.

I think the general feeling seemed to be less alarmist and more one of caution. Something like "the free services provided on the internet are great, but they come at a price, and it's important not to ignore that price or let it go unchecked."</div>

That's exactly the show I was talking about, it doesn't inform because it doesn't go into enough detail to give an accurate picture, so you can't decide for yourself because any sane person would realise that they have nowhere near enough information to do that. And it doesn't attempt to simply tell you a useful answer, all it does is get a bunch of different opinionated people to be opinionated at the camera, attempt to instil fear (because god knows the 'it's highly unlikely to affect you and there is hardly anything you can do about it anyway so don't worry' philosophy won't come across as 'realistic' enough)

That stuff about recommendations is ridiculous, nobody with half a brain would become entirely incapable of getting ideas from any other source other than the bar at the bottom of an online shopping page, everybody is exposed to the majority of new things through social interaction and simply existing in a world where people with all sorts of ideas about what is good are forced into close proximity. Even if it was true who the hell cares? 'Oh no I have been pursuing my interests in this area with the help of a computer IT MUST BE EATING MY SOUL AARGH'. It's new media alarmism and nothing more, you might as well argue that bookstores should not categorise their stock because people who like science fiction might end up being exposed to more science fiction (because it's in the same section) rather than books on cookery, it's a ridiculous idea. Of course when it's a computer it's obviously different because everyone knows computers are scary things and they must have insidious ulterior motives designed to homogenise all humanity into serving the corporate marketing government robot communist overlords.

It is, simply, just like any other 'informative' show. Which is to say that it isn't.

Crispy · February 2010

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 15 2010, 01:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753252"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>That stuff about recommendations is ridiculous, nobody with half a brain would become entirely incapable of getting ideas from any other source other than the bar at the bottom of an online shopping page, everybody is exposed to the majority of new things through social interaction and simply existing in a world where people with all sorts of ideas about what is good are forced into close proximity. Even if it was true who the hell cares? 'Oh no I have been pursuing my interests in this area with the help of a computer IT MUST BE EATING MY SOUL AARGH'. It's new media alarmism and nothing more, you might as well argue that bookstores should not categorise their stock because people who like science fiction might end up being exposed to more science fiction (because it's in the same section) rather than books on cookery, it's a ridiculous idea. Of course when it's a computer it's obviously different because everyone knows computers are scary things and they must have insidious ulterior motives designed to homogenise all humanity into serving the corporate marketing government robot communist overlords.</div>It's a speculative trend not an absolute. The point is to raise awareness, not predict the future with complete accuracy.

Tesseract · February 2010

Frankly I agree with Chris that this is your usual modern documentary - that doesn't seek to comprehensively inform, but to give you an opinion. Although where he and I disagree is that I think even these psuedoinformative programs have their merit, even if you have to watch them with a high does of scepticism. I find it easier to perform damage control on horrible opinions if I know where they got them from.

Chris0132 · March 2010

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Feb 21 2010, 01:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1754414"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Frankly I agree with Chris that this is your usual modern documentary - that doesn't seek to comprehensively inform, but to give you an opinion. Although where he and I disagree is that I think even these psuedoinformative programs have their merit, even if you have to watch them with a high does of scepticism. I find it easier to perform damage control on horrible opinions if I know where they got them from.</div>

Fortunately I have the luxury of ignoring everyone with a silly opinion because I know people who don't have any and I just go hang with them instead. Trying to educate people is really time consuming and depressing so I generally don't bother.

More programs need to be humorous, that way you can watch them even if they're wrong and on the odd occasion they're right, the ideas will stick nicely.

Virtual Revolution

Comments