Tag Archives: #Content in Context

Pop in Perpetuity

Posted on by
Reply

Exactly a year ago, I blogged about ageing rockers and their propensity to continue touring and recording. This past weekend I experienced two events that provided almost polar opposites as to how musicians will perpetuate their “live” legacy. (Of course, in theory, their recordings will last forever, in physical, digital and streaming formats – as long as the equipment, technology and platforms survive…)

On the one hand, there was the Sun Ra Arkestra, who since their founder’s death in 1993, have continued to play the music of Sun Ra, respecting the sound, format and spirit of the original band formed in the 1950s. Some of the current band members played with Sun Ra himself, so there is a thread of continuity that connects us back to the past. But even as these surviving members depart this world, the music of Sun Ra will live on in concert form through subsequent generations of players. This type of perpetuity is not uncommon among bands of the 60s, 70s and 80s, although in many cases, there is usually at least one original band member performing, or members who overlapped with the band founders. (Some notable exceptions: Soft Machine, who continue performing and recording, but whose remaining original member left nearly 50 years ago; and Faust, who split into at least two separate bands that still tour and record under the same name.)

On the other hand, there was the high-tech concert presentation by the late composer and performer Ryuichi Sakamoto, entitled KAGAMI. This involved the use of AR headsets and a 3D avatar of Sakamoto, captured in sound and vision performing a selection of his music, sat at a grand piano. The audience, initially seated in a circle around the virtual performance area in order to acclimatise to what they were seeing, was invited to move around the avatar, and even peer into the open grand piano. Two things were striking: first, the 360 degree image was very impressive in the level of detail; second, even if someone was standing between the viewer and the avatar zone, the headset still presented the image of Sakamoto sat at the keyboard. The technology not only captures a digital visualisation of the pianist in action, it also replicates the notes he played as well as the tonal expression and the timbres, resonances and acoustics of the physical instrument. While the audio HiFi was superior to the atavistic CGI, the latter will no doubt improve; as will the slightly clunky and heavy headsets – the 50 minute duration is probably the most I could have endured.

Neither format of the above concerts is better or superior to the other. Both are authentic in their own way, and true to the artistry of musicians they celebrate. Of course, if we end up using AI to compose “new” music by Sakamoto, that may undermine that authenticity. But given Sun Ra’s origin story, I wouldn’t be surprised if he started beaming his new works from Saturn.

 

Regulating Social Media….

Posted on by
Reply

The term “mainstream media” (or MSM) is generally used as a derogatory term to describe traditional news services (print, broadcast, on-line), especially by anyone who thinks that MSM does not reflect what’s “really going on” in politics, society and the wider arena of current affairs. Depending on which conspiracy theories or political agenda you follow, if MSM doesn’t agree with or express your viewpoint, it’s become very easy to dismiss the Fourth Estate as an instrument of the (deep) State, or merely serving the interests of an oligarchy of wealthy media owners and press barons. This dialectic is sometimes described as the Fifth Estate – those bloggers, podcasters, citizen journalists and marginalized voices that seek to pursue their version(s) of the truth via new content platforms.

Although the tradition of the counter-culture as represented by this Fifth Estate has a very long history, its growth has been accelerated and amplified thanks to new digital technologies in general, and social media brands in particular. The problem is, not only is social media challenging (and ignoring) many of the rules and conventions that underpin the social contract between the public and the traditional media outlets, our governments and regulators cannot keep up with the pace of technology.

In the late 1980s, when I studied sub-editing and basic journalism at night school, the ethos of The Five Ws of Journalism were still taught as the essentials of any credible news outlet or publication. This was also a time when the media was going through significant changes, from new content technology to cross-border ownership, from multi-channel narrow-casting to 24-hour rolling news formats – yet the principles of source verification, fact-checking, libel laws and the right to reply were generally still seen as crucial to instilling public trust and confidence in the media (alongside a healthy dose of scepticism to not believe everything that we read in the paper!).

Now, with social media grabbing more of our attention, and with large, global and engaged audiences on their platforms, who are getting more of their news from these channels, the term “MSM” could easily apply to social media itself. Hence the term “legacy media” has emerged to describe traditional news services.

Whether it’s Facebook wanting to be the “world’s newspaper” or X positioning itself as the global “public square”, it’s clear that these new media barons are in many ways no different to the aging media moguls they seek to displace. Newspapers don’t make money from their cover price or even subscriptions – most revenue comes from advertising and the “rivers of gold” it represents. Now, those advertising dollars are on-line, and tied to our social media accounts and the proliferation of posts, “likes” and “shares” (as well as our personal data).

So how should we think about regulating social media, if the old rules no longer apply?

First, the policy, regulatory and industry framework to oversee social media needs to be simplified and streamlined. In Australia alone, based on a cursory internet search, I identified more than a dozen entities (government, agency, association) that have some form of oversight of social media. Apart from being highly inefficient, surely it doesn’t have to be this complicated? (And complexity and ambiguity can embolden those who seek to flout convention.)

Second, if a social media platform wants to be taken seriously as a trusted news source, and if it aspire to be recognsied as a publication of record, it has to adopt some fundamental principles such as The Five W’s. It’s all very well saying that these platforms are anti-censorship, and pro-free speech, but those rights come with a heap of legal and social responsibilities. To argue that these platforms are merely conduits for public opinion (rather then being content publishers) undermines agency theory. Given that I am not entitled to a social media account (I don’t think it’s yet risen to being a fundamental human right?), and that I don’t own my account (often, not even the content I post), social media companies act as our agents. They give us permission to use their services, and they ultimately control what we post on their digital real estate. They also use algorithms to manipulate what is served up in our feeds. Social media should therefore be held accountable for content that it enables to be disseminated; take more responsibility for any libel, lies or dis/misinformation issued on its platform; and risk prosecution for any content that promotes, encourages or incites violence, insurrection and public disorder.

Third, the fact that much of the content on social media is user-generated should not absolve these platforms from having to provide a formal right of reply, as well as adhering to a recognised and independent dispute resolution service. This will enable alleged victims of on-line bullying, harassment, personal abuse and outright lies to seek redress, without having to embark on expensive legal proceedings. (Of course, if social media companies maintained fact checking and other verification tools, they should be able to mitigate, if not eradicate, the need to invoke these mechanisms in the first place.)

Finally, any reputable social media company should be willing to sign up to minimum standards of practice in respect of content originated or disseminated on its platform, as well as observing existing regulation around personal data, data protection, cyber-security, privacy, intellectual property rights and general consumer protections. At the very least, social media has to prove itself a credible alternative to the legacy media it seeks to displace, otherwise they are not the solution, just another part of the problem.

The wrong end of the stick!

Posted on by
Reply

In a typical knee-jerk and censorial reaction, Australia’s Federal Parliament has recently approved legislation that will attempt to ban anyone under the age of 16 from accessing social media.

Knee-jerk, because the legislative process was rushed, with barely a 24 hour public consultation period. The policy itself was only aired less than 6 months earlier, and was not part of the Labor Government’s election manifesto in 2022.

Censorial, because Australia has a long history of heavy-handed censorship. I still recall when I lived in Adelaide in 1970 (aged 10), broadcasts of the children’s TV series, “Do Not Adjust Your Set” were accompanied by a “Mature Audience” rating – the same series which I had watched when it was first broadcast in the UK in 1967 during the tea-time slot!

As yet another example of government not understanding technology, the implementation details have been left deliberately vague. At its simplest, the technology companies behind the world’s most popular social media platforms (to be defined) will be responsible for compliance, while enforcement will likely come from the eSafety Commissioner (to be confirmed).

The Commissioner herself was somewhat critical of the new policy on its announcement, but has since “welcomed” the legislation, albeit with significant caveats.

From the perspective of both technology and privacy, the legislation is a joke. Whatever tools are going to be used, there will be ways around them (VPN, AI image filters…) And if tech companies are going to be required to hold yet more of our personal data, they just become a target for hackers and other malicious actors (cf. the great Optus data breach of 2022).

Even the Australian Human Rights Commission has been equivocal in showing any support for (or criticism of) the new law. While the “pros” may seem laudable, they are very generic and can be achieved by other, more specific and less onerous means. As for the “cons”, they are very significant, with serious implications and unintended consequences for personal privacy and individual freedoms.

Of course, domestic and international news media are taking a keen interest in Australia’s policy. The Federal Government is used to picking fights with social media companies (on paying for news content), tobacco giants (on plain packaging) and the vaping industry (restricting sales via pharmacies only), so is probably unconcerned about its public image abroad. And while some of this interest attempts to understand the ban and its implications (here and overseas), others such as Amnesty International, have been more critical. If anything, the ban will likely have a negative impact on Australia’s score for internet freedom, as assessed by Freedom House.

The aim of reducing, mitigating or removing “harm” experienced on-line is no doubt an admirable cause. But let’s consider the following:

  • On-line platforms such as social media are simply reflections of the society we live in. Such ills are not unique or limited to Facebook and others. Surely it would be far better to examine and address the root causes of such harms (and their real-world manifestations) rather than some of the on-line outcomes? This feels like a band-aid solution – totally inappropriate, based on the wrong diagnosis.
  • When it comes to addressing on-line abuse and bullying, our politicians need to think about their own behaviour. Their Orwellian use of language, their Parliamentary performances, their manipulation of the media for personal grandstanding, and their “calling out” of anything that does not accord with their own political dogma (while downplaying the numerous rorts, murky back-room deals and factional conflicts that pass for “party politics”). I can’t help thinking that the social media ban is either a deflection from their own failings, or a weird mea culpa where everyone else is having to pay the price for Parliamentary indiscretions.
  • A blanket “one size fits all” ban fails to recognise that children and young people mature and develop at different rates. Why is 16 seen as the magic age? (There are plenty of “dick heads” in their 20s, 30s, 40s etc. who get to vote, drive, reproduce and stand for public office, as well as post on social media…) From about the age of 12, I started reading books that would probably be deemed beyond my years. As a consequence, I by-passed young adult fiction, because much of it was naff in my opinion. Novels such as “Decline and Fall”, “A Clockwork Orange” or “The Drowned World” were essential parts of my formative reading. And let’s remember that as highly critical and critically acclaimed works of fiction, they should neither be regarded as the individual views of their authors, nor should they serve as life manuals for their readers. The clue is in the word “fiction”.
  • Children and young people can gain enormous benefits from using social media – connecting with family and friends, finding people with like-minded interests, getting tips on hobbies and sports, researching ideas and information for their school projects, learning about other communities and countries, even getting their daily news. Why deny them access to these rich resources, just because the Federal Government has a dearth of effective policies on digital platforms, and can’t figure a way of curbing the harms without taking away the benefits (or imposing more restrictions) for everyone else?
  • In another area of social policy designed to address personal harm, Governments are engaging with strategies such as pill-testing at music festivals, because in that example, they know that an outright ban on recreational drugs is increasingly ineffective. Likewise, wider sex, drug and alcohol education for children and young people. Draconian laws like the under-16 social media ban can end up absolving parents, teachers and other community leaders from their own responsibilities for parenting, education, civic guidance and instilling a sense of individual accountability. So perhaps more effort needs to go into helping minors in how they navigate social media, and improving their resilience levels when dealing with unpleasant stuff they are bound to encounter. Plus, making all social media users aware that they are personally responsible for what they post, share and like. Just as we shouldn’t allow our kids to cycle out on the street without undertaking some basic road safety education, I’d rather see children becoming internet savvy from an early age – not just against on-line bullying, but to be alert to financial scams and other consumer traps.
  • Finally, the new Australian legislation was introduced by the Labor Government, and had support from the Liberal Opposition, but not much from the cross-benches in the Senate. So it’s hardly a multi-partisan Act despite the alleged amount of public support expressed. It may even be pandering to the more reactionary elements in our society – such as religious fundamentalists and social conservatives. For example, banning under-16s from using social media could prevent them from seeking help and advice on things like health and reproductive rights, forced marriage, wage theft, coercive relationships and domestic violence. Just some of the unintended consequences likely to come as a result of this ill-considered and hastily assembled piece of legislation.

Signing off for 2024….

Posted on by
Reply

Regular readers may have noticed the lack of posts to this blog in recent weeks. Thanks to some overseas and interstate travel, I have overlooked my commitment to weekly updates. Plus, a dearth of inspiration has contributed to partial writer’s block.

Rather than trying to force the issue, I’ve decided to use this lull as a natural prompt to take an early end-of-year break from blogging. Especially as we have the combined southern hemisphere effect of a headlong rush into the Holiday Season, and an extended summer hiatus.

Looking back over 2024, it has felt as if the popular desire for political change has quickly turned into a case of “be careful of what you wish for”. Less than 6 months after securing an overwhelming win in the UK general election, the British Labour government is already wearing out its welcome, given the level of public frustration and administrative set-backs concerning key policies and poor executive governance. And with Republicans about to assume the reins in Washington, the US electorate must be bracing itself for the change (or déjà vu) about to be unleashed in the Whitehouse with Donald Trump’s return to office. Here in Australia, the current Labor government is facing the prospect of being a one-term administration, as it has had little positive impact on the cost of living crisis, and has resorted to pushing through ill-drafted and ill-considered legislation in the final Parliamentary session of the year (and possibly the last of this government’s term).

On a personal note, there have been some notable highs, offset with sad losses and other family setbacks – the latter mainly thanks to the ageing process which, despite its inevitability, can still be cruel and arbitrary. So I’m thankful that apart from the odd aches and twinges, I enjoy a reasonable level of health and fitness.

The material and spiritual elements that also sustain me (music, wine, good food, art, cinema, travel, books…) continue to provide sustenance, although in some cases (especially in film and art) I have noticed a declining return on the time invested in them. And of course, I’m grateful to have a group of friends with whom to share many of these pleasures. As with most areas of my life, when it comes to friendships, I prefer quality over quantity (“less is more”). Social media has its uses, but without connecting IRL, on-line friendships can easily come and go with the click of a button – but true friends are lifelong, and the threads can be maintained over the years, and even at a distance, because of the foundational links that underpin them.

With that thought, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a safe, peaceful and festive Saturnalia and beyond into 2025. See you next year!