Category: Group C

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

Name of the Category Reaction Gif

Example:

via GIPHY

Counter-Example: 

Analysis: These GIFs typically include the entire face or body of a person, which allows for powerful expressions. In the example, the person has a very strong reaction and uses his entire body and face. For a counter-GIF, we made a GIF showing just someone’s eye blinking. Because everyone is always blinking, this doesn’t portray any emotion or reaction to something. If this was sent in a text conversation in place of a reaction GIF, I would consider it an end of the conversation, which is directly opposite to the purpose of a reaction GIF.

 

Name of the Category: Cinemagraph

Example:

via GIPHY

Counter-Example: 

Analysis: These GIFs are normally very classy and artistic, often used in ad campaigns for fashion companies. The example I used was from a Coco Chanel ad campaign. I made a counter-GIF from the Simpsons, and used a picture of Homer drooling. Both of these are crude and unartistic things, but the actual GIF is created in the Cinemagraph style of only having one moving element.

 

Name of the Category: Sports

Example:

via GIPHY

Counter-Example: 

Analysis: Sports GIFs are usually meant to capture an intense moment in a sporting game, and therefore show an epic play or point. I chose an impressive catch from a baseball game for the prototypical example. The counter-GIF shows a very anti-climatic moment in a football game. I think it’s a counter-GIF because it’s not a moment from sports that anyone cares about remembering, so turning it into a GIF is almost pointless and undermines the purpose of sports gifs.

Posted from Digital Studies 101 by Alivia

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

Here’s an interesting question: to what extent is digital blackface — the frequent embodiment of black culture through the use of online GIFs — the fault of GIF databases like GIPHY? If we’re being honest, the average person who, say, wants to tweet a reaction GIF is not going to take the time to make his or her own.  The process can be somewhat cumbersome, and it takes time and effort to make your own GIF. Instead, search bases like GIPHY allow someone to filter through a variety of GIFs with a key search word. Typing in “reaction” on GIPHY brings up interesting results.

5 of the first 12 search results to the keyword “reaction” on GIPHY brings about GIFs featuring black people. On a further note, one of Twitter’s main categories (“Dance”) under popular GIFs displays quite a few instances of black people dancing as suggested GIFs. In this case, the user doesn’t even have to search for these GIFS; they’re displayed right there as suggestions.

The prominent use of black people in “reaction” GIFs and “dance” GIFs on Twitter seem to be an issue, but this development begs the question as to how much of it is the user’s fault? If we’re presented with a library of GIFs from the keyword “reaction,” and a large portion of those GIFs are of black people, doesn’t it seem more likely that we’ll ultimately choose one of those “black people GIFs” to formulate the reaction that we want? It seems that these popular platforms like GIPHY are more to blame, as they’re the ones that are ultimately linking GIFs of black people with stereotyping search terms. In order to address this issue, it’s probably worth looking at how these databases choose to display these GIFs; we need to look at why GIFs of black people come up more frequently when we’re looking for reaction GIFs.

Posted from Digital Studies 101 Blog by Grant L.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

Sports GIF Example

Sports GIF Counter-Example

This counter-example takes what looks like a traditional sports highlight GIF and spins it on its head. In the main GIF, we see a player celebrate after scoring a touchdown. He spikes the ball; he’s excited. All the attention is on him, and effectively, the GIF serves to reiterate the celebration of a team succeeding. Take the counter-example though, and you’ll see that the GIF doesn’t focus on the highlight or celebration at all. We see the ball go in the hoop, but then the camera zooms in on a player on the opposing team’s bench. The player lets his head down in disgust; clearly his team is not playing well, and the opponent making yet another shot causes him to react in this manner. While on the surface this GIF looks like a sports highlight GIF, it acts more like a reaction GIF, as the focus is on the opposing player’s reaction to the made shot rather than the highlight itself. In a sense, this is a way for Illinois Basketball fans to showcase their disgust: the reaction of one of their players mimicking exactly what the fans see as they watch the game. It’s more of a lowlight sports GIF than a highlight sports GIF even though a shot is being made.

Cinemagraph GIF Example

Cinemagraph GIF Counter-Example

Here we can see how this counter-GIF is a clear attempt at parodying a typical cinematographic GIF. The first GIF is still and focuses on an aspect of nature — nothing moves except the water, and we as viewers are supposed to be mesmerized, looking closer and closer at the ripples of the stream. While the counter-example is not a still frame, it has a lot of the same qualities as the GIF above it — with a twist. We’re supposed to be relaxed looking at nature and casually following a car as it makes its way behind a tree. In fact, this classic Youtube video “Scary Car” causes us to look closer and closer for the car as it’s about to appear from behind the tree. We’re relaxed, we’re interested, and we might find ourselves moving our heads a bit closer to the screen in order to follow the car more closely. And then, this zombie-like creature pops out and scares us in order to throw off the whole dynamic of the relaxing features of nature. This counter-GIF sets up like a cinemagraph GIF, but the purpose is to “troll” the viewer at the end of the loop rather than to allow for creative and intuitive viewing.

Reaction GIF Example

Reaction GIF Counter-Example

This counter-example GIF to a typical reaction GIF serves as a counter-example because, well, there is no reaction. Yes, most reaction GIFs are over-the-top to egregiously display emotion in the form of excitement, grief, etc. The reaction GIF example above is a more subtle reaction, but it still effectively displays a reaction: slow and subtle realization leading to a pleased and content smile. This Youtube video turned into a GIF of a man not reacting at all to a roller coaster ride flips the idea of a “reaction GIF” on its head. In a sense, this GIF doesn’t make sense because there is no reaction. At the same time though, we can see how this GIF could be effective in certain contexts to display the lack of a reaction. Imagine this GIF with the caption “My face when someone thinks they’re better than me.” It works. The reaction is no reaction. This GIF shows the emotion of being unfazed without displaying any emotion at all. This counter-example shows the idea that reaction GIFs don’t necessarily have to display emotion to depict the way someone feels.

Posted from Digital Studies 101 Blog by Grant L.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

One of the main points of discussion in the assigned article revolved around the energy costs of computation and data centers. These energy costs could become a serious environmental problem as internet usage continues to grow, the article notes, with the main problem being the source of the electricity used to power the massive data centers that handle the public’s many technological needs. Until recently, many large tech companies used coal-based electricity to power their centers, but several have started to make the switch to renewable energy sources after facing pressure from pro-environment organizations like Greenpeace (Burrington 2015).

Moving to cleaner energy partially alleviates the problem, but it does nothing to address the fact that the general public does not pay attention to or care about how much energy their technology uses. Burrington writes, “The impact of data centers—really, of computation in general—isn’t something that really galvanizes the public, partly because that impact typically happens at a remove from everyday life”. She is correct with this assertion. When I stream a movie onto my laptop, the only energy concern on my mind is whether or not my computer battery will last through the whole movie. Not once does it occur to me that in some remote Netflix data center massive amounts of electricity are used to stream the content to my (and millions of other people’s) device.

Encouraging people to watch how much energy their device uses could work in a way similar to posting calorie counts beneath food items on a menu.

Both of these strategies would rely on a psychological phenomenon called a “nudge” by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their book of the same name (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). In Nudge, the authors discuss how simply calling attention to the quantity of an item being consumed (calories on a menu or kilowatt hours on Netflix) can act as a catalyst to encourage people to consume less of that item. Perhaps Netflix and other streaming sites could create something similar to a calorie count. Below each movie title, Netflix could list the energy needed by the data center to stream the entire video. By doing so tech companies may be able to encourage their customers to be more aware of their energy usages, thus reducing them in the long run.

 

Citations:

Burrington, Ingrid. “The Environmental Toll of a Netflix Binge.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 16 Dec. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/there-are-no-clean-clouds/420744/. Accessed 19 Sept. 2017.

Thaler, Richard H, and Cass R Sunstein. Nudge : Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 2008.

Posted from My DIG 101 Blog by Matt B.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

Our world consumes a lot of energy – 19,710 billion kilowatt-hours in 2012, according to “The Environmental Toll of a Netflix Binge” by Ingrid Burrington of the The Atlantic. To satiate the world’s ravenous appetite for energy, we use a variety of renewable and nonrenewable resources. Obviously there is a limit to what we can produce from our finite supply of nonrenewable resources, but that limit may actually be much higher than we currently believe. This is due to one method of producing energy that is often overlooked because of certain stigmas – nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is an excellent source of power because it takes relatively little fissionable material to produce a stupendous amount of energy. Furthermore, it is surprisingly safe. Very few workers have ever died in accidents at nuclear power plants, especially when compared to deaths at coal mines and oil rigs. Additionally, fears of nuclear power plants exploding like a nuclear bomb are completely unfounded because nuclear power plants cannot explode. While the uranium used to produce nuclear power is only about 4-5% enriched, nuclear bombs require uranium that is 90% enriched. This means that the uranium used by nuclear power plants cannot sustain a chain reaction, and will not explode in the manner that nuclear bombs do.

The last major argument for nuclear power is the possibility of nuclear fusion power, which would produce a virtually unlimited source of energy. Nuclear fusion is idea because it uses heavy hydrogen isotopes abundantly found in seawater and does not produce radioactive waste. The only problem is we haven’t been able to produce and contain the extreme conditions necessary to facilitate its production. However, nuclear fusion represents the potential for virtually unlimited, clean (though nonrenewable) energy.

Posted from DIG101 Blog by Noah R.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

Do self-identified tree huggers hesitate before replying-all to an email? According to an infographic published by Kualo (an internet hosting service powered by renewables), those concerned about the environmental impact of the internet should take steps like opting to use a smartphone over a laptop for quick searches, unsubscribing from email blasts, and limiting use of the reply-all feature on email. These energy-reducing internet habits seem far from mainstream—most people tend to talk about their internet use as relatively carbon-neutral, an ethical non-factor. Until I read Ingrid Burrington’s The Environmental Toll of a Netflix Binge, I too thought of my use of digital technology in relatively unproblematic terms.

Why is the public generally oblivious or apathetic to the environmental impact of digital technologies? One could speculate that our conception of technology as immaterial and ephemeral masks technology’s role in material processes like climate change. We cannot see the fiberoptic cables or the massive data centers that make the global internet possible, and so therefore they fail to capture our attention.

While raising consumer consciousness is certainly one part of the solution, we should be wary of narratives that foist the burden of sustainability on consumers and individuals rather than powerful institutions. Sure—we can stop replying all to emails just like we started bringing reusable bags to the grocery store, but we should be clear that the responsibility to build sustainable digital infrastructure lies with corporations and governments. Hugely profitable companies like Faceboook, Google, HBO, and Amazon need to continue the push for a transition to renewables. Even if such companies are only in it for the PR, it’s a net good.

 

 

 

Posted from Digital Studies by Hannah L.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

Upon reading The Environmental Toll of a Netflix Binge, I found it pretty jarring to think that data-center’s use so much energy. As consumers we tend not to think about things like the consumption of our consumption because we’re using it on the surface. This idea reminds me of the idea of how this class is meant to shape our understanding of what actually goes on inside the digital world we live in, not just the output of a cat video that we watch.

Going back to the reading, although it was initially surprising that data companies like Netflix and Facebook use a ton of energy, after logically thinking about it, it’s not surprising at all. Although I don’t know the exact process for how data companies use sources of energy, they have to keep their centers working and running so we can enjoy our streaming and Internet use. I guess it was just initially surprising because of the fact that we don’t think about these things. And I think finally thinking about these things is what can make a difference in shaping opinions to in the future make it so we have a future in which we still have data centers, but run on renewable sources of energy.

I think it’s great that Facebook and Google have switched to natural resources. However it’s nice to think that altruism made them switch when in reality it was just because it’s cheaper in the long term to do so. And it’s just a fact of business that things are done because it makes for good business, like how the bigger companies pressured the smaller companies to switch too. Looking to the future, I agree with Ingrid Burrington who says in her article that “recognizing that how we build the future frankly determines whether we have a future at all” (7). In the context of data-centers, that means switching to renewable sources of energy. But it also applies to the whole world, as we’ve known for an even longer time.

I attached a video that I think is worthwhile to watch.  It is part of a webseries called Sci-Show, and is with John Green’s brother.  The speaker talks about energy intake, including the need to cool the servers, keep them going, and ways in which data centers are trying to cut the costs, and the energy used.  It’s very interesting and educational.

Posted from My blog by Will M.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

This article covers a lot of topics all at once. The argument that these data servers are ecological monsters is a little strange though. It makes a better argument for the hidden impact of technology as whole than it does for the evilness of just servers. The truth is these servers are what keep everything we need and or want to use running. Without them we would be setting ourselves back decades.

The biggest issue I had with this article is that it started to make this food chain of energy, but never really flushed it out fully. The article showed us how much energy servers use, then how much our computers and phones use and then finally how much streaming and videos use. Well this is all great, but the servers are using power, not creating it. Eventually we hear about how Greenpeace and Facebook were using coal power plants and that after some due pressure they changed to renewable energy. The problem lies with that final step. If Google wants to use energy equivalent to the entire country of Turkey that is great, because it is run off of renewable energy. I can guarantee that the entire country of turkey is not using renewable energy. So  the fact that Google is, is a step in the right direction. In my mind how are these servers  are not the biggest problem that we face in this scenario.  In fact these larger companies that use the cloud for storage, save more energy than the local servers. It may be harder for smaller companies to do what Facebook and Google are able to do, in terms of using renewable energy. That being said though, they also aren’t using nearly as much energy as those two companies. I think that the more important message to take from this is that even the internet has an effect on the environment. Even though in our mind it is ethereal entity, it is actually just as grounded as a factory.

 

Berkeley Lab Study Finds Moving Select Computer Services to the Cloud Promises Significant Energy Savings

Posted from My blog by Patrick H.