Re: [Air-l] Taxonomy of Content on the Internet
Hi -- I'm not sure this went out correctly the first time I sent it, so I'm trying again. Apologies for the double post if it is one. -------------------------- On Sun, September 17, 2006 07:32, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed wrote:
Although I do not have an answer for the question you raised, I guess an important point is the one related to the criterion upon which we label anything as being metadiscursive. As far as I can see, two main perspectives can emerge. First, it can be said that anything that is not related to the propositional content--which Christy seems to call the 'actual thing,' is metadiscursive. Second, anything related to 'writer-reader' interaction can be taken as being an example of metadiscourse. Again, as far as I know, this will depend upon the perspective from which we strike the distiction between discourse and metadiscourse.
Taking the question in a slightly different direction, I'm curious as to what percentage of internet "content" is pornographic -- a term, of course, with its own fraught definitions, but one that is frequently invoked in "moral panic" characterizations of online information. Do folks here know of any statistical breakdowns of the internet focusing specifically on adult/taboo material? -- Bob Rehak Visiting Assistant Professor Film and Media Studies Swarthmore College
At the risk of complicating this still further, what are the boundaries of "the internet" of which one would assess the content? Web pages? What about what happens within the context of games? Emails? IMs? When I first read the question, my immediate thought was that one would never think to ask if more of the content of face-to-face conversation was 'about' things rather than things themselves, nor would one attempt taxonomies of telephone content. So I guess I'm questioning whether the question as posed makes sense. And I don't mean that as a slight to Christy, because I think the basic issue of whether there is more original entertainment content (by which I'm assuming she means videos, art, fiction, music, etc) or discussion of it is interesting. I'd be inclined to guess she's right that there's more discussion of than creation of going on, but I'm guessing that's true across the board -- there are surely more conversations about films face-to-face than there are films. My 2 cents. Nancy
I wonder if the problem is the word content itself (which has too many, contested uses). Firstly, on a technological basis might I suggest we separate "channel media" (print, radio, TV, film, videos, nonnetworked games) vs "environmental media" (telephone, CB radio). I understand the latter, environmental media, as being 'contentless' in the sense that the content is constitutive of the experience of being into communicative enviroment (eg a telephone call) - while there are two people on the phone, they experience the interaction within an environment of collectivity (2 become 1). Oddly enough, that's why conventions of turn taking, dialogue etc are required - since the 'two are in one space, without a connecting channel' you need social rules to manage that. The former, channel media, distances and separates the two parties (conventionally producer and audience memebrs) - content is necessary to 'link' the two together because otherwise there is no connection. The internet confuses all of this (as does, incidentally, latest generation mobile phones and, in theory at least, iTV) because it actively promotes combinations of channel and environmental media; on a business end, too, content has become a major issue because of the difficulty of profiting sufficiently from 'just' communication. Phone companies and related service providers don't make a lot from providing the environment; they want deals or control over content to make significant returns (both through direct selling and related advertising). I suspect that the key term is not content, but connectivity - and content and communication are elements that create different kinds and patterns of connectivity between ppl. What do you think? M Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f)
Matthew Allen wrote:
I wonder if the problem is the word content itself (which has too many, contested uses).
Firstly, on a technological basis might I suggest we separate "channel media" (print, radio, TV, film, videos, nonnetworked games) vs "environmental media" (telephone, CB radio). ...
I just ran across this quote which I thought encapsulated the issue nicely: "As Hirsch and Silverstone (1992) argue, information technology poses unique challenges because it is both a set of artifacts to be consumed as well as a medium within which social relations are conducted." (from Nafus and Tracey "Mobile Phone and Concepts of Personhood" in Katz & Aarkhus Perpetual Contact, p.208)
participants (3)
-
Bob Rehak -
Matthew Allen -
Nancy Baym