France's Apéro Géant: Cultural Events Fueled by the Internet

Today's world is a world of our own making. It is very exciting to be a participant in globalization. We have the good fortune to see the people of the world growing closer despite geographical limitations. We are using the Internet and mass communication to reach each other in ways we never imagined before. But are we doing it right?

In 2010, the world's tallest building opened in Dubai. Chile experienced an 8.8 magnitude earthquake. Eyjafjallajökull erupted in Iceland, closing much of Europe's airspace. California's Proposition 8 was overturned.

Meanwhile, in France people were worried about the dangers of eating snacks and having a beer outdoors.

Here in “the Hexagon,” there is a really nifty custom called the “apéritif.” It's one of those not-so-easily-translated-into-English words that one sometimes hears about. The reason it isn't so easy to translate is that it refers to an event in which English speakers don't ordinarily take part. Imagine you've been invited to the home of a French friend or colleague. They tell you that you'll be having lunch, and instantly you think “Okay, I'll have a sandwich and perhaps have a cup of coffee with them.” When you arrive, they sit you down and pass around some bowls of nuts, crackers, chips, or what have you.

You feel betrayed. You wonder where lunch is.

[caption id="attachment_3294" align="aligncenter" width="530"] "I was told there would be food."[/caption]

They start to ply you with alcohol: “Here, have some red wine. Now try the white wine. Would you like something else?” and, with your stomach being mostly empty, you start to feel the alcohol affecting you. Suddenly you are oh-so-sociable and your French is better than it has been in years. Then, everyone sits down around the table and they start serving actual food.

This is what I think of when I think of the apéro, as it is called in short. Of course, I am an outsider looking in on the customs of another culture, so don't consider me an expert. As I see it, the apéro is the moment when everyone is waiting for the chicken to finish baking. We start drinking a bit and eat some savory snacks. It's like warming up for a long run, except you'll be horribly bloated at the finish.

One day, as I did every day, I walked through the town where I was studying and approached the local castle (cool, I know). Normally on a beautiful spring day, I'd walk through the tranquil grounds, drinking in the sights and sounds of gravel crunching underfoot, birds chirping in the trees, and the sun shining on the grass outside the walls. On this particular day, however, the grounds were absolutely covered with bodies all busy drinking and snacking on treats.

While marveling at the strange and wonderful sight, I suddenly noticed an armored vehicle at the perimeter, surrounded by police officers in riot gear. I didn't know what was happening, and as far as I knew, it was the strangest riot I had ever seen, given that everyone looked so very jubilant.

Later, I learned that what I had seen wasn't a mass of people angrily protesting something. I had witnessed an apéro géant (giant apéritif). It's the same idea as the apéritif I described before, but this time, it was in public, and with hundreds of people.

A few years ago in France, young people began taking advantage of Facebook to communicate to one another the locations and times of these apéros géants.

In the US, public intoxication is a punishable offense that is taken very seriously. In many other countries around the world, however, it's just fine to drink yourself into a stupor and talk to pigeons, stare at the sky, or play a board game in the park- whatever you'd like to do, unless it isn't breaking a law like stealing or breaking-and-entering. It's also illegal in France, but I doubt that I'd be arrested for stumbling along the street on my way home here. Perhaps a more relaxed treatment of public intoxication enabled this kind of event to expand?

[caption id="attachment_3296" align="aligncenter" width="480"] "I don't care if you think it's weird; he understands me."[/caption]

As we communicate more easily, we can begin to see this communication affecting our cultures and the way we interact in them. This is exciting and dangerous. While the apéro géant is a nice idea- it is akin to an American college party---it does have negative aspects. Apéros géants have been used as political platforms, some of them anti-Islamic in nature. At one apéro géant with more than 9,000 participants, a 21 year old man fell from a bridge he had climbed. He later died as a result of his injuries. At a different apéro géant, three men were arrested on charges of having raped a 17 year old Irish girl.

Under current French law, apéros géants are treated as public gatherings that can be regulated according to laws designed to maintain public order. In order to host one of these events, someone must first declare her or his plan to host it and may be held responsible for the conduct of the participants. The host(s) must sign their name(s), include the names of participants, the motivation for holding the event, and might even be required to include an itinerary. Failing to comply with the law may result in a fine of up to 7, 500 euros and/or 6 months in prison.

Should the French government have the right to limit the freedom of the people to gather for these apéros géants? Should the government be required to provide security and safety at these or other public events? Is it wrong for people to use Facebook and other forms of social media to manipulate long-standing cultural traditions? In doing so, are these traditions diluted, or are they enhanced?

What do you think?

[Click on images to find their sources; the image of the apero geant has been slightly modified for better visibility in accordance with copyright restrictions.]

Fooling The General Public: Mass Media in South Korea & Turkey

[caption id="attachment_3261" align="aligncenter" width="300"] “Naneun Ggomsuda's” (나는 꼼수다) hosts (photo by Emre Kanik)[/caption]

While living in the Netherlands my Korean wife followed the political situation of her country very closely. She gave me regular updates on what was discussed on the popular podcast “Naneun Ggomsuda” (나는 꼼수다) to which she listened every week. The podcast was the voice of young people in South Korea, addressing issues that wouldn't be touched by the conservative mainstream media. Allegations against government officials were frequent, and the government sought a way to stop the podcast by making the life of the hosts very difficult. For example Chung Bong-ju (정봉주), one of the four hosts and national lawmaker at the time, was found guilty of spreading false rumors in what many of his supporters have called a political process, accusing then-presidential candidate Lee Myung-bak in 2007 of being affiliated with a company that forged stock prices. My wife was outraged by the prison sentence, and I was surprised that such a claim could land you in jail, being a politician myself at the time, in a country where you still drink a beer with your greatest political enemy after a city council meeting. So when our visit to South Korea coincided with the protest against Chung Bong-ju’s imminent incarceration, my wife insisted on joining.

On a cold but sunny December morning, we arrived at the subway station near the courthouse where the protest was held. At the station I saw small groups of young people dressed in red, bringing signs, balloons, and roses with them. It didn’t seem like a massive protest, but when we arrived at the entrance of the courthouse, the road was full of people. A white van with a sound system was parked on the curb, playing music and occasionally someone would play the MC and say something in Korean, which I didn’t understand at the time. Cameras of the press were positioned on the roof of one of the buildings in the surrounding area and in front of the entrance of the courthouse. Even the police had someone filming the protesters, which I found kind of odd at the time.

[caption id="attachment_3229" align="aligncenter" width="1024"] The protest (photo by Emre Kanik)[/caption]

The crowd was cheerful and the atmosphere was not at all aggressive. They were singing and dancing and sometimes they all sat on the ground when the MC was telling them to. I didn’t understand why this was happening, but I knew what the cause was, so I sat down as well. Sometimes my wife would translate parts for me, but most of the time she was caught up in the protest. When the hosts of the podcast arrived things got even more lively with speeches and cheers. When it was time for Chung Bong-ju to enter the courthouse, the crowd parted to make a passage and roses were thrown on the ground where he would walk while All you need is love by the Beatles was played and sung by the protesters. He went to an area behind the police line where protesters were not allowed to come, made a final statement to the media (which were surrounding him at this point) and went inside. At the end of the protest when we walked back to the subway station a small fight almost broke out. Apparently an older lady had shouted to some of the protesters that the color red is used by communists. Some curses were exchanged, but that concluded the incident.

[caption id="attachment_3228" align="aligncenter" width="1024"] Chung Bong-ju addressing the crowd (photo by Emre Kanik)[/caption]

The purpose of the protest and the situation with the old lady at the end reminded me of Turkey. It sometimes shocks me how similar the Turkish and Korean cultures are: the close family ties and friendships, how people with different opinions are immediately treated as enemies, and how losing face is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. Similar cultures make similar societies, so it is not a surprise that there are many similarities between Turkey and South Korean politics as well. Opposing political parties are each other's mortal enemies. Whoever is in power uses everything they can to destroy anybody who opposes them. One of the most commonly used tools: mass media.

In both countries the ruling party wants to control what the people see and read. Having a population that still relies heavily on newspapers and news broadcasts, they keep those under strict control. Although organized differently in the two countries, the effects of that control are the same. It is sufficient to say that high positions at TV stations and newspapers are filled by people friendly to the regime and journalists are pressured (or voluntarily) report what the high management is ordering them to. I won’t go into too much detail how it is exactly organized (Groove magazine has an excellent article on the South Korean situation), but have seen the effects firsthand. When we got home from the protest and turned on the news, we saw how state control operates by outright lying to its inhabitants. The news reported that there was little support for Chung Bong-ju at the protest, showing only the last part where he was in an area where the protesters were prohibited from entering and not showing footage from the rooftops, which would show the true number of people present. This is a mild way of bending the facts, but since then measures have been much stricter to prohibit the people of South Korea to see the truth. During the presidential elections, the Korean secret service has even been accused of trying to manipulate the discussion on Twitter in favor of the ruling party's candidate and now president Park Geun-hye by starting a smear campaign against her main rival. Another example of mass media control became clear during and after the Sewol disaster. The major newspapers and TV stations blindly published and reported government statements and press releases without checking if what they reported was true (many media outlets would apologize for this later). Public confidence in the media fell to a record low.

While state control over the media in South Korea is troubling, in Turkey it is a disaster. Ruled by the conservative Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) since 2002, Turkey has the highest number of jailed journalists in the world and the AKP has most major media outlets under firm control. The AKP isn’t afraid to use its control over the media for its own personal gain, a fact that became painfully apparent during the wave of protests that followed after the government violently tried to end a friendly sit-in at Istanbul’s Taksim Gezi Park in 2013. Protests engulfed the country addressing press freedom, freedom of expression and assembly, and the government's intrusion on secularism. The government replied with brutal force, teargassing and cracking down on peaceful protesters. The role of mass media in the protests? CNN Türk broadcasting a documentary about penguins. While the country burned, the state controlled media first tried to ignore it. When that didn’t work because all international media were reporting in full force (regular CNN was showing the protests) and Twitter exploded with images and videos about what was really going on, on came the fabricated lies. From reporting that protesters had entered a mosque with their shoes on and drunk beer inside to showing them burning the Turkish flag (which was actually footage from 2010), the state controlled media did everything in their power to slander the protesters. Sadly because so many Turkish people still rely on traditional media for their news, a large part of the country believes this all actually happened. In the recent presidential elections, TV stations wouldn't say anything critical about the leader of the AKP Erdoğan, while the opposition was heavily attacked. The official state channel TRT spent time only on Erdoğan and ignoring his rivals all together. That is pretty problematic in a country where less then half of the population uses the Internet and therefore relies on these broadcasts as their sole source of information.

So is there no way to get reliable information in Turkey and South Korea? As in many cases, the Internet is your friend. Although it is becoming a troubled friendship because of the government of both countries want to control information there as well, it is still possible to find the real story on what is going on. However, if so many people keep relying on traditional media to keep themselves informed it is fairly easy for the government to keep feeding half-truths and lies to the general public. Without true reform in both countries’ mass media their democracies will always be in danger of turning into something uglier. Having the power to vote is just one part of a democracy. Having unbiased information on who you can vote for is just as important.

Pop Culture: Enjoy... But Be Cautious

Stuck in Stereotypes

I once read that the majority of Americans don’t have a passport. As a European, I thought this was an incredibly shocking, if not dismaying, piece of trivia. On the other hand, presumably even those without passports know that Italians eat pizza and pasta and the typical French person cycles around with a baguette, wearing a black beret. An Irish citizen wears green and stumbles drunk down the street. Australians throw boomerangs at kangaroos. All the classic stereotypes.

These examples seem perhaps quite harmless at first glance, but what about the others---all Arabs are Muslim, all Blacks are poor, all Jews are greedy.

Stereotypes influence our decision making and are difficult to unlearn. Where do we form these ideas? How do we come to know---or think we know---so much about countries and cultures we have never experienced firsthand? The answer is through popular culture – the media of film, books, magazines, music and videos.

Mass Media: The Importance of Popular Culture

We cannot underestimate the power of mass media and pop culture in shaping our perceptions, ideals or prejudices of another culture. When it comes to ‘exporting culture’, there is both “High Culture" and "Low Culture" (a.k.a. Pop Culture). High Culture includes opera and ballet but reaches a smaller audience. Pop culture is much more ubiquitous and as a result arguably more influential. Let’s look at the most popular example---violence on our screens.

It is well documented that watching violence in film and on television could negatively influence the viewer. There is evidence to suggest this is true. Recently, a young man in the USA killed and dismembered his girlfriend after being inspired by a popular show about a serial killer, Dexter. On the other hand, Norway is regarded as a very peaceful country with low internal conflict. Is it a coincidence that the same country attempts to control, avoid and limit negative influences from its media? Crime is not sensationalized, television has little violence, boxing is banned from television. Even E.T. was rated too violent for viewers under 12.

Violence on television is a widely debated topic in the public eye. Why then, is less thought put into monitoring and researching the power of pop culture? Most people would look down at the importance of studying pop culture, believing it to be insignificant. Pop culture can be fun and educating but at the same time, it is a major factor in building prejudices and creating stereotypes. When original content is made by one culture and exported to another, we need to examine it carefully and make an educated decision on whether or not it is accurately portraying a culture’s image.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="329"] How are Asians usually represented in film? The men traditionally played the role of the villain such as Ming in Flash Gordon. On the hand, women tend to be painted as soft, feminine and desirable.[/caption]

Film: Learning about Cultures without Personal Experience

While I have yet to visit most of the countries in the world, it seems that I already know so much about them. You probably feel the same. Those who have yet to visit Paris, New York or London all have wonderful images and notions of their streets and alleys. Bustling Asian markets, piranhas in the Amazon and tribes in Africa. We are all constantly learning about cultures without firsthand personal experience. This increases the risk of misshaping our attitudes.

Through mass media, I know that India, for example, is a colorful place with a rich history, delicious food and with wonderful landscapes and locals. I do however, also know that a series of high-profile rape cases have tarnished the country’s image over the past few years. This has lead to a decrease in tourism. I know this from reading the news or watching a documentary but often it is film that is the most widespread channel in delivering gateways into other cultures. Looking at India again, the film Slumdog Millionaire was criticized by Indians for showing the country in such a dim light. Yet friends who have visited there can’t speak highly enough of such a beautiful place. Who to trust more, media sources or those who have been there and done that?

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="556" class=" "] Slumdog Millionaire presented the slums of Mumbai in a brutal but honest light. Still, it would most likely turn viewers away from India.[/caption]

Taken, the Hollywood blockbuster about human trafficking in Paris, apparently led to a decline in annual tourism in France. Parents told the movie’s leading front man Liam Neeson, “I’ll never send my kids to Europe.” To Asia, after the movie The Beach was released showing Leonardo Di Caprio’s adventures in Thailand, tourism soared there. People saw what an interesting culture Thailand had to offer with friendly locals, crazy parties and pristine beaches. They also expected shots of snake blood, shark infested-waters and drugs growing out of thin air on their arrival.

Heading north, to eastern Asia and Korea, a French actress Brigitte Bardot highlighted that Koreans eat dog in the French media prior to the 2002 FIFA World Cup. This spread across the global media and painted Koreans in a barbaric way, despite their huge advances in modern technology and innovation. The eating of dog, although a separate topic, is a custom that has lasted centuries and is ingrained in local culture here. We shouldn't compare cultures as being right or wrong, simply different. On a better note, Korean dramas have recently become huge in Cuba, of all places.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="488"] Phi Phi island in Thailand. Since the Beach, the area has received an incredible boost to tourism but local culture and the surrounding environment have taken a battering.[/caption]

Media: Objective or Subjective?

In general, we often believe that the media---whether a newspaper, a television show or a documentary---is objective and reflect their subjects much like a mirror would do. However, in fact the media is more like a window. It is mostly subjective and only offers us one viewpoint. Another window from the same building may cast a different light. This is to say that when we consume foreign pop culture we must do so with an open mind. What we are seeing, reading and hearing may not represent the true culture of a nation. The media is usually affected by local constraints that we are not aware of such as religious, political, historical or gender differences.

Korean director Kim Ki-Duk has had great success at international film festivals but his movies have never been widely appreciated in his homeland. If someone was to watch just one of his films, they would have a misrepresentation of Korea. Traditionally African-American women were portrayed as domestic stereotypes like in Tom and Jerry (which now carries a racial warning to viewers). Often media that is ‘factual’ or ‘based on a true story’ is only telling one side of a tale. Others rewrite history altogether; Disney’s Pocahontas, for example, all but overhauled the tragic history between natives and European adventurers.

[caption id="attachment_3259" align="aligncenter" width="250" class=" "] Media framing - what we see may not be a true reflection[/caption]

Keep an Open Mind

As technology improves, culture is spreading more and more. However, there is also a major global imbalance. Individuals from less populous cultural groups tend to import huge amounts of foreign content as it isn't plausible to consume only their own. Societies that watch too much foreign media may lose touch with their own. On the other hand, major nations like America, tend to view or consume little or no foreign content.

Finally, for many of us, some cultures and some nations exist only through popular culture. Mass media and pop culture are major powers in building our perceptions of other cultures and can often be only somewhat correct and educational. Those who do use media as their primary source of learning about other cultures thus need to consume as much as possible with an open mind in order to see a wider, probably more accurate picture of a nation, group or culture. Still, the best way to learn is still to get out there and mingle with real people.

Which is more popular? TV vs. Internet in Korea and America

The mid-20th century gave us television. The late 20th century gave us the Internet. Now in the 21st century, a battle rages between the two, as they try to conquer the market of countless viewers. Who will come out the victor? Well, that depends on the part of the world in which you happen to be residing. Let the fight begin!

 

Korea

TV
Before everything went online, Korea, along with the rest of the world, had simple broadcast television. What’s broadcast television, you ask? It simply means your TV picks up signals sent out by broadcasting stations like your local news station or big corporate stations like MBC (Munwha Broadcasting Corporation) or SBS (Seoul Broadcasting System).
When it comes to Korean TV, Korean dramas have teenage girls (and some men) swooning, jumping, screaming, and whatever other overemotional reaction, over their favorite K-stars.

[caption id="attachment_3247" align="aligncenter" width="382"] Fans look up as their saviors come down upon them from Heaven[/caption]

The Korean wave, or Hallyu, began in the mid 1990s, but it took most of Asia by storm at the beginning of the 21st century. As it spread around Asia, Korean dramas and boy/girl bands picked up popularity in Europe and America as well. These dramas are what make Korean TV essential to its audience.

Want to watch “Modern Farmer”? Tune in to SBS on the weekends. Have an itch for the latest “Music Bank”? Flip over to KBS Friday night. TV still plays a gargantuan role in being a platform for viewers to catch up on their favorite Korean shows. According to a survey by Quartz, a whopping 78 percent of Koreans watch television every day, compared to the 26 percent that watch online videos.

The news is also a big part of any home television set. Folks that have yet to catch onto this new "Internet fad" still rely on good old fashioned television for information. The biggest broadcasting stations in Korea like MBC , SBS, or KBS produce great drama series and other family-fun programs like "Running Man (러닝맨)" or "Infinite Challenge (무한도전)." However, they are also the biggest news media outlets in Korea as well. These stations hold the most viewership rating in Korea. Though it's true they may be biased towards their political views when it comes to reporting the news, the majority of Koreans watch their shows for the latest news. However, with Internet, a lot of Koreans can find other news sources online.

Exactly  how much Internet do the Korean people use in this IT era?

[caption id="attachment_3248" align="aligncenter" width="392"] Grow your own Hallyu star![/caption]

 

Internet
Everyone knows South Korea provides many of the fastest Internet networks in the world. But do they use the Internet to its full advantage? After all, there are more Internet users (33 million) than there are people with television sets (15 million). With such a fast connection, watching videos or simply surfing the Internet is quite convenient. Korean television provides original shows, but even TV programs can be found on the Internet. Sites like wwitv.com air major Korean and other countries’ broadcasts online.

[caption id="attachment_3249" align="aligncenter" width="389"] Pictured: Social gathering[/caption]

But the Internet is more than just watching shows. It’s a vast cyberworld where information and other forms of entertainment collide---not to mention the online games. There are thousands of Internet cafes and PC rooms scattered throughout Korea that bring in people of all ages. Also, let's not forget  the smartphones. Oh God, are they everywhere in Korea. According to Mashable, 73 percent of Koreans have a smartphone, and with free messaging apps like Kakaotalk, it’s quite difficult for people to get along in society without one. Hell, some people can’t go an entire day without their smartphones (my personal record is six hours).

 

Winner: Internet

Yes, Korean dramas are quite popular throughout all of Asia and in some Western countries, too. However, Gangnam Style spread like wildfire throughout the world, and that would not have been possible without the Internet. A lot of Koreans rely on the Internet to watch, read, and listen to news as well as talk to their friends and associates. And when many of the college students in Korea don’t own a television, it’s much easier for this age group to be content with having the Internet. Koreans are more dependent on the Internet than they are on TV. With mobile technology such as smartphones, almost everyone has a connection to the Internet. This connection to their phones and tablets seems like an addiction in Korean. Though TV is still popular when it comes to shows and other mainstream media, the people of Korea would still prefer their Internet connection.

 

USA

 

TV
Let’s start with the stats. According to Tubefilter, the average American watches 5.3 times more TV than YouTube. Roughly speaking, Americans watch about four hours of TV per day. It’s hard to imagine being able to sit on the couch everyday and watch TV for that long. Perhaps the shows are that much entertaining. After all, American TV shows like the never-ending NCIS have penetrated many countries, including Korea. It’s not only popular shows that keep Americans stuck to their televisions.

[caption id="attachment_3250" align="aligncenter" width="383"] 11 years in the running. Seriously, we get it. You guys are awesome. Now just stop. Please.[/caption]

Sports broadcasts are televised year-long. The biggest sporting event is the Super Bowl. Companies spend millions of dollars for 30 seconds of advertisements. The 2014 Super Bowl set the record for the highest viewed show in U.S. history with 111.5 million views. These sporting events along with other shows are great at bringing people together.
Many people flock to someone’s house to watch the latest NFL game or NBA match. And even those who like similar shows like Glee, have a party dedicated to eating unhealthy junk food and watching their favorite shows.
However, the amount of time spent watching television is beginning to fade due to the Internet.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d-dZlxqs7g]

 

Internet
With apps like Hulu and Netflix, Americans can watch their favorite TV shows anywhere and anytime. The Internet gives them the flexibility to catch up on their latest shows at the viewer’s convenience. It’s also a gateway for people to comment and express their thoughts and opinions about the TV shows they have come to adore. I don’t think there has been a single episode of Game of Thrones after which viewers would go online and praise or spout angry comments. Pretty soon, viewers won’t have to watch TV. They can just simply watch what they want online.

Americans between the ages of 18 and 49, which is the target for most major networks, are watching less television than the previous year, according to a Nielsen survey. After all, it makes more sense to pay 10 dollars a month rather than spend nearly 100 dollars on broadcast television. Let’s not forget that smartphones and tablet computers are also having a major impact on increased internet usage.

Viewers would need a TV set to watch shows and other programs, but with mobile phones and tablets providing the freedom to log onto the Internet, viewers have access almost anywhere.

[caption id="attachment_3251" align="aligncenter" width="364"] Words of wisdom from Ron Burgundy himself[/caption]

 

Winner: TV

Surprised? It’s true broadcast TV is dying down while Internet streaming is gaining more popularity. However, TV is still the biggest media outlet in America at the moment. True, you can watch almost anything online, but the television is still the biggest medium when it comes to shows and other TV programs. Ever since the invention of the television, TV has been one of the forefronts in bringing people together. Though that may soon change with the rise of the Internet, the modern television has yet to lose its popularity in America.

If I Were an Outsider, What Would I Say About Mass Media?

[caption id="attachment_3207" align="aligncenter" width="450"] What's so much better about the flat black dog than me?[/caption]

If I were an outsider to our "modern" and "connected" society---perhaps someone hailing from a community where mass media and the quick distribution of information never existed---what would I think about our increasing submersion in online virtual realities? I’m sure I wouldn't be worried about the world’s richest R&B couple, that enormous pet rabbit over in Scotland, or even the latest mid-term elections in North America. Without mass media in my life, I wouldn't be constantly surrounded by flashy images in digital or print which tend to provide false ideas of how a person should be living. I can only imagine that if I were indeed a person who lived in a community where the use of mass media and easy information dissemination never existed, I would think more often of the others around me; I would work more on myself and my faith; I imagine that I would feel a lot more at peace.

If I were to be alive one thousand years from now, what would I contemplate about mass media and its long term effects? I’m sure I wouldn't care about the countless millions of "Selfies" taken daily; I’d hardly be able to read through the billions of blogs and websites to find an exact answer to a question. Despite my hypothetically cynical and senile sour take on it, could the exploration and distribution of mass media someday become a custom and folk tradition during those years from 2014 to 3014? Or would I be stuck naively believing, “Hundreds of years ago, everyone and her Mom would, after suppertime, forgo conversation and community to go into separate bedrooms to hunch over computers and watch videos of others and even themselves.”? I fear that a thousand years from now, if I were to be alive, I’d be looking back on all of the isolation that humans endured while putting mass media first.

The reasons I might feel bitter: There are times I find the information age distracting, annoying, and even at times downright exhausting. It seems at times that everyone who advertises online, through print, and on billboard, is in constant competition, all attempting to become famous in one way or another. I also wonder why everyone has become self-involved to the point of missing out on real-life human connections. People spend significant time sharing their personal stories and opinions about their family, their pets, their friends, and their ideas by using their photos, their blogs, their voices. It seems tiresome and tremendously difficult to live up not only to the ideal physical, emotional, and mental but now even digital way of living in a modern pop-culture world. For one to become not just a great family man/woman, boss, and weekend gardener but now also e-mailer, media blogger, political idea-generator, and assiduous liker of friends' gym photos all at the same time seems much too exhausting. Wouldn't life be more simplistic and meaningful if we had only each other?

[caption id="attachment_3205" align="aligncenter" width="400"] Maybe Keanu has a point.[/caption]

That is all, of course, if I were an outsider or living a thousand years from now. But I’m not an outsider to mass media in the least, and I definitely don’t know what life looks like in 3014. Alongside everyone I personally know, we are all a living, breathing culprit of the world's mass media crime. I read articles and view videos online. I post articles and videos online. I distribute teachings and facts that I've learned. I distribute personal feelings and ideas. I distribute some things to the outside world, hoping that in some way it can reach another person in an academic way. I can’t waste time hating mass media; I choose to embrace it in a balanced manner.

So, I ask myself again: What if I was an outsider or future historian---but one who could find a beautiful thing or two about mass media and its effects on pop-culture? What if I found that while it distributes many forms of information to regions all over the world, it continues to create space and inspirations for new ideas, opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and even a few psychological needs? Mass media is provided electronically and digitally, through print and big, crafted signs. It may even be provided vocally with the art of public speaking. In the modern worlds that thrive on pop culture, all forms of information are accepted and discussed. The people working within mass media provide wonderful sources of information by either addressing problematic issues or brainstorming multiple solutions. There is an ever-growing platform for creative expression. Mass media may cause isolation for some, but it also brings people from all over the world together---a sense of "interconnectedness." Maybe mass media isn't so bad after all.

Some communities that choose to stray from mass media are happy in their own version of what life should look like. In fact, many individuals who have been surrounded by mass media all of their lives take to the mountains with rucksacks, creating a new version of what life should be. Mass media and the ever growing distribution of information are not for everyone. But I have to be grateful for all that it has done for me, and everyone I know. Perhaps I won’t win a YouTube nomination for Best Music Video, and perhaps in the end, we will all become egotistical, isolated, human beings---but what an interesting change in sociology we've made so far.

What Good Is Cultural Diversity, Anyway?

[caption id="attachment_3187" align="aligncenter" width="375"] Why should we have all these flags when just one would suffice?[/caption]

The human race now possesses the ability to share ideas among a more culturally diverse range of people than has ever been possible in the entire history of our species, thanks to the Internet. Pretty big, right? Well, maybe not. As I argued in last week's post, the numbers suggest that we're not actually putting the theoretical globalizing power of the Internet into practice, in that we still tend to organize our online communities around shared geographic and cultural identities.

But is this really a problem? We're already inundated in information, and the brain can only process so much. What does it matter if those data come from sources within or beyond our so-called cultural groups? In short, what's so great about diversity anyway?

Well, why don’t we ask the first single-celled organisms that figured out how to exchange genetic material with their neighbors--or, better yet, the antibiotics slowly being rendered obsolete by their promiscuous, rapidly evolving descendants--about how important diversity in possible reactions to the environment is for the fitness of an organism in our ever-changing world. And let’s accept for just a moment Richard Dawkin’s model that certain tenets of culture, like the genes carried by living things, might be represented as “memes” that spread throughout a population with differing levels of fitness and virility [1]. Given the experiences of our unicellular friends, wouldn’t it be the case that the ability to draw material from a variety of diverse sources, like a conjugating protist or transducing bacteria, is beneficial for the fitness of an idea or, by extension, the society that absorbs it? A forest of Dutch Elms might have a certain charm that a forest of mixed maples, beeches, pines, and elms doesn’t have, but when that epidemic of Dutch Elm disease hits sooner or later, I know which one I’d rather build my log cabin in.

Okay, fine. Maybe diversity and sharing are fine for the world of high-school biology case studies, but we’re neither single-celled organisms nor plants. Except that an examination of several societies throughout history supports the theory that those who thrive are those who borrow, so all hail the supersymmetric tree of life. For example, the Tang dynasty is often recognized as the heyday of the nation we currently call China. From 618 to 907 A.D., the Tang boasted the most populous city in the world at its capital Chang’an, the invention of gunpowder and woodblock printing, and several dozen drunk poets good for a few exam questions in college Chinese literature classes. Interestingly, the Tang also saw the rise of the Indian religious philosophy Buddhism and consequent migration of monks from south and central Asia into China, intermarriage between Chinese nobles and nomadic peoples of the western steppes, and the increased tolerance of outside cultures that ensued [2]. Coincidence? Perhaps, of course; correlation absolutely does not equal causation. But, also, perhaps not. (This is sort of why I prefer lab science to history.)

The evolution of Japanese-Korean relations up through the sixteenth century also stands as testament to the upper hand afforded by cultural borrowing. For much of history, Korea occupied a privileged position as the transmitter of borrowed Chinese culture to Japan: Chinese characters, Buddhism, and even Japanese history texts flowed through the peninsula from the mainland, and, by some accounts, Korea maintained a largely amicable relationship with the islands [3]. But, as the anecdote goes, from the time that the Japanese emperor Tokitaka saw a Portuguese adventurer on board a Chinese trade ship shoot a duck with his arquebus one day in 1543, “the gun enters Japanese history.” [4] And Korean history as well, for not fifty years later, an army of Japanese entered the country as not quite polite robed scholars kowtowing to the intellectual might of the Chinese-supported Korean academic establishment but as well-armed conquerors eager to play with their new assimilated toys. With about 40,000 matchlock-carrying soldiers among their initial force of 160,000, the Japanese invaders made short work of the Koreans in the beginning, despite the latter’s own light artillery technology, itself borrowed from the Chinese. For all its technological handicap, however, Korea did eventually win the war against Japan---once it opened its doors to Chinese military allies [5].

[caption id="attachment_3188" align="aligncenter" width="945"] This Korean real estate company is using the presence of American soldiers as a selling point for an apartment complex in Seoul. Should potential buyers be running instead?[/caption]

And what, exactly, was so great about Peter the Great? He turned Russia from a backwater of greasy-bearded bear hunters into a world power in the mid-eighteenth century. How? Maybe his affinity for borrowed culture played a role. By multiple accounts, Peter looked to Europe as a social and aesthetic model for his own nation. He modeled elements of his new capital St. Petersburg after the canal systems of Amsterdam and the gardens of England [6], required court nobles shave their beards after the French style and adopt French dress, and decreed that henceforth women as well as men were to participate in courtly entertainments---as long as they were dressed after the English or Dutch fashion. [7]. In doing so, he was hoping to emulate the successes of a region whose accomplishments in technology, politics, and culture he admired. And, judging from his hard-won military victories against Sweden that earned Russia some new territory and himself the title of “Emperor of all Russia,” his eponymous capital city, and, of course, a place in history as “Peter the Great,” he clearly succeeded at emulating someone’s success [8].

So natural as well as anthropological history offers examples of successful biological and societal organisms characterized by readiness for outside exchange. But what about societies with closed ideologies---those stuck in an evolutionary rut, if you will? Well, the modern world offers, among others, the convenient example of North Korea, a communist dictatorship with high-level political, social, and economic barriers shuttering in a society into which even the Internet has very limited penetration. Its biggest exports these days seem to be angry nativist rhetoric, failed missile launches, and hungry defectors. Not quite the steps a nation might take toward a glorious historical legacy.

Cultural borrowing does not just confer benefits upon the borrowers but upon everyone with the capacity to enjoy the results. Those who borrow are able to take advantage of their superior vantage point as an outsider to cherry-pick and develop the best aspects of a certain cultural phenomenon, thus improving upon the original; as the Chinese proverb goes, 旁观者清 (outside observers see the most clearly). For example, African slaves and their descendants in America borrowed from the tradition of European-American Christian hymns to develop their own brand of spirituals, which we know today as black gospel music. Anyone who compares the version of “Holy, Holy, Holy” by the Black Soul Gospel Choir (the members of which, I might add, hail from a diversity of backgrounds, further legitimizing “black gospel” as a musical form distinct from the original tradition from which it borrowed) [9] with the more purist Catholic version [10] might come to the conclusion that the borrowed meme distilled the celebratory spirit of the music while leaving behind much of the more, um, soporific aspects. The borrowed culture caught on a lot more strongly than the original, forming the basis for musical genres that may not have developed otherwise---blues, jazz, and eventually rock. I’m not arguing that the Beatles wouldn’t have existed had African-American slaves not borrowed from and improved upon church music---oh, wait; yes, I am.

Not only should we be paying attention to ideas worth borrowing from each other, maybe we should also be paying more attention to those already borrowed. Perhaps it is the case that elements of borrowed culture successful enough to spread throughout a new host society are inherently more fit--that is, useful or enjoyable--than equivalently popular elements of local culture. Assuming that a significant proportion of humans might be inherently averse to new ideas and art forms simply for their novelty, the mere foreignness of a foreign idea filters it through an extra selection pressure before it can enter another locale. In other words, you can’t hope to swim through the sea of Beyonce and Justin Bieber unless you tickle the synapses Gangnam-style. This, of course, is based on a loose assumption, since one could also argue that humans tend to crave novelty more than they fear it. Research citations, anyone?

But enough of the same; let's follow my own argument and get some more perspectives into this mix. Dear readers, what do you think? Does cultural diversity in and of itself confer special advantages on a society, or is the idea that cultural diversity promotes cultural resilience just biased hooey from a bunch of starry-eyed hippies in the liberal media?

 

Afraid of Your Smartphone? You're in Good Company

Today, it is almost strange to see someone without a smartphone in hand, uncomfortable to be in a place where there is no WiFi, and unnerving to imagine a day without Google. Humans worldwide have become so dependent on the Internet that some don’t know what to do with themselves if they are not online. It's how they get their everyday jobs done; how they learn, read, figure things out; how they connect with others in their daily lives. But while there are billions of people who heavily rely on the Internet as a main resource for jobs, daily tasks, and communication, there are hundreds of sub-cultures that do not wish to connect with others online. This article will explore some of those sub-cultures and the possible reasons that technology may not feature in their everyday lives.



They Just Don't Know
For one, some people don’t use social media networks like Facebook or Twitter, use a smartphone or computer, or even use the Internet at all simply because they don’t know how. Some people just don’t have the resources to get onto the Internet; some have never even heard of it. Have you seen the movie Avatar? Pre-industrial societies like the Navi do indeed exist in small corners of the human world, and for them, the Internet may seem like something akin to interstellar flight or cold fusion to us. But for those who have access to the Internet and or smartphones and just don’t know what they’re doing will sometimes just give up and result back to a more simpler way of dealing with social interaction, like, you know, in person.

Private People
Some people want to protect their privacy, and, let’s face it, social media networks are essentially online phone books connected to a server. Even photo-networks such as SnapChat save your ‘timed out’ photos to their server. This might freak a few people out, especially if they are trying to apply for a new job or want to hold their current position. People will protect their privacy online by using a different name or pseudonym, different pictures to represent themselves such as anime characters or pictures of trees, etc. There are also the people who choose to get rid of technology all together to protect themselves and/or family members from a previous stalking or abuse situation. However, the small font warnings about Privacy settings that come with smart phones and online social media networks don’t always attract the human eyes. It is so important to review your current privacy settings and remember to never share too much information. Example: Don’t tweet or post “I’m home alone tonight” when you’re privacy settings are set for public viewing. People get stalked this way.

The Religious and the Anarchists of Technology
People from long ago and until this day have continued to hold various religious convictions against technology. These sub-cultures find that technology will ruin a community and mankind. Modern-day transportation and gadgetry really started taking off during the Industrial Revolution. During this time, a group of British lads and ladies known as the Luddites held social stances and techno-anarchist schemes against the engineering of technology as they longed for a simpler and more pastoral life. Machines that replaced human hands and hard work left many jobless and frustrated. Those same machines were attacked and left broken in many cases by the anarchists of technology. A more calm example of people who choose religion over technology are those of The Amish cultures of today. The Amish still prefer a life more pure and precious, one without violent media and dirty rap.



Technophobics
People are just plain scared to get involved. Really, Technophobia is a term used to express both the fear and dislike of technology. It started with the Luddites during the Industrial Revolution. The fear of technology grew even more around the world after weapons of mass destruction were created and used during World War II. It has been depicted in films like Frankenstein, Fern Gully, Skynet, The Terminator, and Demon Seed that technology is something to be scared of. Whether it is a lightning bolt that awakes a dead man, a poisonous tractor that kills forests, a half-robot half-man that kills human beings, or a computer that becomes a human – they all mean the same thing – never underestimate the power of technology. Not only in fictional films are computers, phones, machines and digital systems taking over. In reality, all of technology has taken over the world. It has replaced the gumption in humans to sit up and find a real book. It has information upon information upon lost photos and messages stored in servers and now the Cloud! Even worldwide famous band U2’s latest album became lost in a Cloud, (yes, there are multiple Clouds) and was instantly on everyone’s smartphone, for free. Do any of us really even know what the Cloud is, or how many there are? At times, I even find myself fearful of technology; what it has done to our world, the way we communicate, and a possible future online war. Technology gives me anxiety. Am I technophobic?

Anti-Time Wasters
Some people won’t use Facebook, smart phones, or the Internet at all simply because they think it’s a waste of time.  For instance, why spend your entire vacation snapping photos and uploading them to Facebook; updating Twitter about your cat and Justin Beiber; gawking at YouTube videos for two hours… the agony! Spend time enjoying REAL LIFE happening around you! I remember becoming annoyed when I’d sit down with a group of close friends to watch a movie together, and everyone was updating their statues and posts online about it. Why?! Why does it matter to Uncle Greg and Elizabeth from ninth grade what you ate today or how your dentist has bad breath? Yes, even in the exciting world of technology and the Selfie, people still really don’t care about your every day and every minute updates. Do something for someone else instead. Get offline and smell the air, pick up a leaf, paint a picture, make up a new dance. When I say ‘People’, I guess I mean ‘I’. ‘I’ don’t always believe that the Internet benefits everyone, especially when meditating on time spent well. And at the same time, if we didn’t have the Internet, it would take so much more time to personally hand write and mail your letters and notes to others. This paradigm shift (return) leads to some really interesting possibilities, and I’d love to see what other think about the communicating through the Internet, online social media networks, and smart phones: Is it more of a time-saver or a waste of time?



Do you think you could go a day without any online communication or updates?
How about going a day without the use of any technology at all?

Net Neutrality: Which Side Are You On?

 

Net Neutrality – the who, the what and the where

Net Neutrality is a modern phenomenon that has been under the public microscope since the term was first coined by Tim Wu, a law professor in Virginia, U.S.A, in 2003, more than a decade ago. He was aware of the growing conflict between the public and the Internet providers, each with their own motivations and intended uses for this growing technology. In a nutshell, Net Neutrality is letting the Internet remain as is---a free field of communication. However, I.S.P.s (Internet service providers) and broadband companies like Internet giants Verizon in the U.S. are trying to reduce this freedom. They want to create an uneven field in which certain, more popular websites and channels could be accessed more quickly than ones in less demand. This means that the broadband providers will fast track these routes whilst slowing down others. The users---the consumers---will have to pay for this quicker access. With this in mind, I.S.P.s could slow down or even block sites and channels according to their whims. Now (excluding money-hungry broadband providers) who on Earth wants that to happen?

What’s all the fuss about?

So what is all the fuss concerning the Net? What is there to debate? It seems most people are somewhat unaware of the conflict. Yet. I think most people just want the Internet to simply remain as it is in its current form. Humans tend to hate stuff that disrupts our lives. If Net Neutrality hadn’t been present from the start, then perhaps we wouldn’t be having this debate at all; it is because of its potential introduction that we are worried. Imagine visiting your favorite park for ten years and then being told one day that you would either have to pay to enter or else you would have to use the back entrance a few miles away. You’d be certainly annoyed, wouldn’t you? But if you knew the situation from the start, it wouldn’t be so bothering, right?

Take another example. In Ireland this year, household water charges were introduced. This means that the Irish public will have to relinquish their right to free water use at home and will now have to pay an annual cost, depending on usage. Most countries have water charges already in place, but it is the introduction that has led the people of Ireland into protest and disgust at the government.

If alcohol was invented today, would it be legal and sold in stores worldwide? Cigarettes? Of course not, but because they have been around for so long, they are enjoyed legally by potential addicts and cancer patients the world over. It’s the unwanted, ‘unprecedentedness’ of Net Neutrality that would cause debate among nations, governments and mostly their publics. When we get used to having something so good on tap, we don’t want anything to change too greatly, be it water, beer or in this case, the Internet.

Why is the debate growing?

After more than ten years passed since the topic first arose, we have seen the availability and uses of the Irocket. ‘Convergence’ in technology is a key aspect. This has lead to the consumer being able to use Internet not just on a PC at home, but also on her phone, laptop, in the car, in the bathroom and even on a plane. The suits need to check their email constantly. Young adults are watching Netflix and addicted to Facebook. Teens are watching porn, playing games and following celebrities. We all need the Internet.

The whole debate on Net Neutrality brings the entire role of the Internet in our lives into question. Is the it just another product akin to TV and cable? Most households in the developed world are willing to add an extra fee to their monthly cable bill in order to watch more sports and movies. Premium football games and the latest movie releases. So why are YouTube, Facebook, Skype and other mega Internet pillars any different? These sites have cost millions of dollars to develop and a vast amount of ingenious brain power to engineer. Why should we be allowed to consume these things for free? Look at Skype and Facebook: They have connected us to our families and friends at next to no cost. Should we hate Internet providers for charging us a few dollars extra for such an incredible facility?

On the other hand, is the Internet more than just a service nowadays? Is it something we could choose to live without or has it become so integral, that to disrupt it in some way, would genuinely harm people’s daily welfare? The Internet itself is arguably humankind’s greatest invention.

Although I can understand business minds want more return on such a wonderful product, personally I think it should remain as it is. The Internet has changed the world immensely. Each website should be given a fair chance of being discovered and becoming the next sensation to captures the public’s eye (case in point: idigculture.com).

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="429"] Favorite website seem a little slower? Seems we need net Neutrality![/caption]

Online but Not Connected: The Internet Does Not Equal Globalization

The year 2013 marked the twentieth that W3 Internet server technology has been freely available to the public. [1] Fittingly, I know that thanks to my Facebook news feed.

That this technology enables the efficient transmission of an increasingly rich web of information might be deemed nothing short of miraculous, but has our behavior caught up to its possibilities? Are we, as one meme so aptly expresses, using our ability to access the knowledge of humanity at our fingertips simply to argue with strangers and watch cat videos? We could be taking advantage of the Web to erect a marketplace of ideas on a scale that would make John Stuart Mill dance in his grave, but are we actually taking the time to avail ourselves of the gold inside this global treasure chest?

[caption id="attachment_2535" align="aligncenter" width="600"] Grumpy Cat is angry because you could be teaching yourself solid state physics right now.[/caption]

Whatever we might be using the Internet for, a lot of us are using it, and we’re certainly using it a lot. According to statistics published by the International Telecommunications Union and Royal Pingdom.com, in the last year the world had 2.7 billion Internet users, or 750 million households (41% of the world) [2] looking at about 630 million web sites. The number of Tumblr blogs reached nearly 90 million, and our old friend Wordpress claimed almost 60 million sites worldwide. Reddit had 37 billion pageviews last year---that’s more than five pageviews per member of this planet---and Facebook supported about 5 petabytes---yeah, that’s a prefix we haven’t heard much of yet---of photo content a month and 2 billion “Likes” per day. This wealth of constantly updated information is hardly limited to the English-speaking world. The most active country on Facebook is reportedly Brazil, with more than 85,000 monthly posts-by-page, and Sina Weibo, mainland China’s Twitter mimic, saw a rate of more than 720,000 posts a minute during the transition from 2012 to 2013 [3].

With all that content and activity, we must certainly be learning from each other, right? Not necessarily. In fact, the Internet’s expansive educational landscape continues to be rent by linguistic, cultural, and political barriers that prevent the free flow of information in the directions we need it most. Even if we limit our discussion to the 35% of the world’s population estimated to use the Internet as of 2011 [4], a limitation that is itself admittedly problematic because a lot of culture---traditions, values, linguistic habits--is locked up in groups that may not have access to the Web, we can’t earnestly assert that the Internet is the orgy of promiscuously conjugating memes that we might hope it to be.

[caption id="attachment_2536" align="aligncenter" width="700"] We can't always expect the English we may be used to. (photo credit: kelleyswanberg.com)[/caption]

Not Everyone Speaks English (No, Really) 

For one thing, not everyone uses, or is able to use, the Internet in the same language. According to Web Technology Surveys, as of today (October 19, 2014), just over half of the content available online is in English, with the rest split up among infinitesimally small pockets of various other tongues, from the far second German (6.1%) to the last-place tie among Hebrew, Lithuanian, Croatian, Ukrainian, Bokmal, Serbian, Slovenian, and Catalan (0.1%), in addition to more than a hundred other languages that make up even less [5]. While English is widely hailed as the international language of business, science, and politics---as physicist Michio Kaku once put it, a step toward a “Level I civilization language,” [6]---and a mostly-English Internet might thus be a step in the right direction, two facts stand in the way of a truly global Web.

First, that only about half of the Internet is rendered in this international language means that the other half is sectioned among (largely) mutually unvisitable linguistic islands of information exchange within smaller cultural groups. Of course, if I really wanted to see what was happening on islands to which foreign language experiences offer no bridge I could just hop on a machine-translation plane, but the view from the window isn’t always so clear, and securing a ticket requires an extra decision and some time, activation energy that becomes even higher in spaces of continuous two-way exchange, as in forum discussions.

Second, the first fact would not be such a big problem if every user of the other languages could also freely browse English sites and exchange ideas there (even if English speakers were unable to hop over to the other linguistic islands, emissaries from them would be sufficient for two-way information exchange), but not everyone can understand the language to the degree required for efficient high-level information processing and expression. According to 2000 estimates from the British Council, in 2010 about 2 billion people were learning English as a foreign language in addition to the world’s 400 million or so native speakers [7] [8], but “learning English” is far from equivalent to “able to use educated high-level English to proficiently understand and express complex thoughts.” Indeed, according to a 2012 study in business English proficiency by English First, the average score among twenty-one countries with non-native English-speaking populations was only about 54/100 (though I, too, wonder what the United States might have scored). I don’t know about you, but in my family a 54% test grade was nothing to boast about in a public statistics database, so knowing that, for example, Egypt’s BEI index came out to 45.92 sort of puts its reported 80,000,000 strong “English-speaking population” in a new light in deciding how influential a website like NYTimes Online might be in fostering dialogue among its citizens [9].

[caption id="attachment_2537" align="aligncenter" width="500"] Look familiar? Maybe not so much.[/caption]

Birds of a Feather Flock Together...

In addition to the more obvious language difficulties, the Internet is also divided by social and cultural barriers that affect our proclivity for certain types of websites. The influences of these factors, which are still often drawn along linguistic, geographic, and/or ethnic lines, are perhaps most readily apparent in the social networks that we choose to use. While Facebook, the largest social networking site in the world, was poised to achieve a billion users in 2013, its international penetration rates are uneven, from 50% in its nation of origin the United States and 52% geographically and culturally proximate Canada [10]. Penetration statistics similarly hover around 50% for Anglophone and Northern Europe: England, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark. Australia and southern South America---Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile have also jumped onto the Facebook bandwagon with numbers similar to the country of its founder, and, as already mentioned, Brazil allegedly sees the most page posting activity.

But the story changes when we step a bit outside of the Anglo-American culture zone. Russia, for example, has a Facebook use rate of only 5%, while 78% of Russians have profiles on local SNS Vkontakte [11]. But how many Kenyans, Canadians, or French people have even heard of Vkontakte, let alone use it to engage in cultural exchange with Russians? Similarly, Korean and Japanese users still seem to prefer Cyworld (30%) [12] and Mixi (21 million active users or about 16% in 2011) [13], respectively, to Facebook (17.06% in Korea, 11% in Japan), two closed systems traditionally difficult for non-residents of those countries to access. And even nations where English is an official language, like South Africa (11%) and India (5%), factors other than language differences are presumably keeping people from connecting with others through the most international SNS currently available to us.

Even though these figures seem to be spiraling in the right direction as the growth of Facebook in countries like Japan is finally starting to engender user numbers surpassing home-grown giants like Mixi and formerly closed local social networks services like Cyworld have started to offering global services in a desperate effort to stave off the looming Facebook storm [14], the fact remains that even when language might not be an issue---Facebook offers interfaces in thirty-seven different languages---we still tend to separate ourselves online into different social groups along lines that seem to have some degree of correlation with culture.

Of course, there do exist some exceptions to this rule, thanks to a few online communities built by enterprising individuals working hard to purposefully increase inter-cultural virtual contact across the world. For example, CultureMesh.com seeks to establish geographically diffuse social networks based explicitly around particular linguistic and cultural interests, but unlike those grown organically around local platforms like Vkontake or Cyworld, these networks are open and accessible to anyone interested in joining. And our own website, of course, is a growing hodgepodge of discussions on cultural issues addressed by people displaced all over the world. We can only hope that more online communities shy away from strictly local comfort zones and join this trend of explicit cultural mixing.

[caption id="attachment_2538" align="aligncenter" width="650"] Thank you Mario! But our princess is in a firewalled server network![/caption]

...And Tend to Peck at Strangers

Finally, not only are we continuing to naturally divide our online communities along linguistic and cultural lines, but we are also even actively erecting our own geographic and political barriers around them. Politically based firewalls cutting down the content available to people in China, Iran, and North Korea notwithstanding, even countries in the so-called free world erect firewalls justified by copyright laws that prevent the international dissemination of certain multimedia content. I can’t sit down to enjoy a free streaming of The Big Bang Theory on a number of websites unless the servers think I’m in America; similarly, in order to watch a Mandarin-dubbed Korean drama or download music from locations indexed in Baidu I need to first log onto a mainland Chinese proxy server. Of course, I’m not suggesting that we turn the Internet into an intellectual property free-for-all, but for the sake of argument (and evidentiary triads of data), it’s interesting to note how these actions suggest our greater valuation of economic and political gain than, perhaps, free exchange and intellectual advancement as a species. As also argued by economist Pankaj Ghemawhat for slightly different reasons than those which I have presented here [15], the world is not quite as flat as book titles by Thomas Friedman may suggest, and an Internet sectioned across geographic, linguistic, and cultural barriers is part and parcel of this phenomenon.

So maybe we’re not using the Internet to pick each other’s brains as freely as we should be. But maybe that’s because we don’t need to. We’re already saturated with too much data, right? Why should we add novel ideas from and experiences with other cultures to the mix, especially given that they’re very probably even harder to relate to and assimilate than the homegrown information deluge in which we’re already drowning? Stay tuned for Part II, on why we should be even be worried that we're not engaging in as much cultural exchange as we could be.

Curb your enthusiasm: Korean internet is not all it's cracked up to be.

Roughly two years ago I moved from a country where net neutrality is implemented by law (the Netherlands) to a country where the freedom of the Internet is under pressure (South Korea). It has been a world of difference using the Internet in both of these countries. To give a feel for how bad the situation really is in South Korea, I will first describe the situation in the Netherlands as a contrast.

The history of how net neutrality in the Netherlands came to be is a fairly recent one. I vividly remember the time when the news leaked that one of the Netherlands' biggest Internet providers had admitted to its investors it was using a technique called Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), with which they could differentiate what the customer was doing on their network. Basically it meant the company was spying on its customers. The plan was to charge extra for certain VoIP and message services because the company was losing money due to decreasing use of SMS and regular calls. The indication that they soon had to pay extra for their WhatsApp use was too much to handle for the Dutch, being the frugal people that they are, and caused such an outrage that the telecom company had to cancel its plan to use the technique. In addition, the Dutch society is also an open one where everybody has the right to express themselves and press freedom is being held in high regard. Therefore, the more informed people worried that the Internet would be controlled by several companies. With these two main arguments, the people urged the Dutch political parties to take action. On 22 June 2011 the Dutch parliament decided to include net neutrality in the new telecom law, and by ratification by the Dutch Senate on 8 May 2012, the Netherlands became one of only two countries in the world (the other being Chile) where net neutrality is guaranteed by the legal system. Thus mirroring the democratic principles of Dutch society in cyberspace.

The benefits of the Dutch net neutrality law for the consumer are many: Internet providers can't limit or charge extra for certain services, the contents of your Internet traffic can be accessed by your Internet provider only in certain extreme cases, your Internet connection can be disconnected only if you don’t pay your bills or you commit fraud, and you have to give explicit permission to let tracking cookies be installed on your computer, which in turn makes it difficult for advertisers to track your behavior on the Internet. All in all it was and is a huge victory for freedom on the Internet. Although at the time I realized to some extent that this was a big deal, since roughly two years I really know by experience how fortunate the Dutch are.

When, in August 2012, I moved to South Korea, which has a reputation of being the Internet capital of the world, I thought I was going to live in the Valhalla of the Internet. Due to several news stories, I thought positively about the South Korean Internet, which seemed to dazzle the world with not only the fastest download and upload speeds around but also nearly universal LTE and WiFi accessibility. Unfortunately, there are some aspects of the South Korean Internet that don't get the attention that they deserve in the news, because of the focus of Western media on the speed of the Internet here. I quickly found out that a new 5G network isn't the most important thing about Internet usage.

A fast Internet connection doesn't get you anywhere if you're not able to access everything you want. Sadly, like in the Netherlands, South Korean cyberspace mirrors its society as well. Internet censorship is common: blocking everything from North Korean sites and materials harmful to minors to pornography and even simple nudity. If the government deems it inappropriate, you won't be able to see it without using a workaround. Unfortunately, blocking some sites is not all the government does; commenting on the Internet isn't anonymous anymore, since you need to register with your social security number to be able to comment on any Korean Internet portal. That makes it easier to extensively monitor the Internet on anti-government comments. Sometimes action is being taken to cut of the perpetrator's Internet or even making arrests in some cases. For example Chung Bong-ju, one of the four hosts of the popular South Korean podcast "Naneun Ggomsuda" (나는 꼼수다) and national lawmaker at the time, was found guilty in 2011 of spreading false rumors, accusing then-presidential candidate Lee Myung-bak in 2007 of being affiliated with a company that forged stock prices. Critics have claimed that it was a political motivated sentence, because of its timing just before the presidential elections. The podcast was a very influential channel of anti-government views. All of this is very serious, but the by far most annoying thing on the Korean Internet ever is Active-X.

The country that has the reputation to be years ahead in technology relative to the rest of the globe relies on this archaic 90's program for its entire e-commerce economy. Forget buying something on your iMac if you're not willing to partition and install Windows as well. Not only that, Active-X is Internet Explorer only, hence the biggest market share of Internet Explorer in the world. Being the Apple fan boy that I am, this frustrates me immensely. I refuse to install Windows on my iMac and if I would, I don't want to have anything to do with Internet Explorer. Fortunately, I have a workaround: if I spot something I want, I'll ask my wife to buy it at her office where she uses a Windows machine. Also I found a bank that has Internet banking for OS X. Well, had Internet banking for OS X.

As a Mac user, you're such a rarity in this country that you're met with a lot of misunderstanding and disbelief. When my bank updated their security protocol they somehow forgot that they used to support OS X as well. As a result the site stopped working on an Apple computer and I had to contact the bank's service center. Their solution was to take over my computer to take a look by sending me an .exe file. When that didn’t work they were genuinely surprised and apparently had no alternative way to access my computer. Not much later after the service center employee promised me she would get back to me and hung up the phone, I got a message that they were unable to solve the problem. So now I have to use my workaround for my Internet banking as well.



Having lived here for two years, I now know that not South Korea, but the Netherlands is the real champion of the Internet. Although the overall Internet speed isn't as fast as that of South Korea, it's close enough. There is no monitoring, no blocking (although there was one issue with Pirate Bay being blocked), and no Active-X. All government websites have to be accessible by all major browsers and all purchases can be done with any operating system. You can criticize the government without being afraid of being cut off from the Internet. While Dutch cyberspace is a free and open world, South Korean citizens have no access to unfiltered Internet. I have not been homesick often in the two years that I lived in South Korea, but when I stumble on news of Internet censorship being used or when I get confronted by the limitations when browsing the web on my iMac, I long for the possibilities of net neutrality in my own country. I secretly wish South Korea would implement it too. Unfortunately, with democracy more and more under strain, I don’t see that happening in the near future.

Korean Memes vs. American Memes

Meme – n. a cultural item in the form of an image, video, phrase, etc., that is spread via the Internet and often altered in a creative or humorous way. (dictionary.com)

Memes are designed to make us laugh. But depending on where you’re from, some memes will have you gasping for air, and some will simply not resonate. While some cultures have different perspectives on what's funny or not, some memes just simply have people xD/MDR/ㅋㅋㅋ/LOLing anywhere in the world. I’ve had a lot of trouble getting Korean people to laugh at some of the memes from America, and vice versa, but sometimes I would hit the jackpot and have both the East and the West bursting out in laughter. Let's take a look at  some of the similarities and differences I found between Korean and American memes, and how the Korean and American people are wired when it comes to comedy.

1. 
   

   Pop culture

   
   The biggest contributors to memes are figures from pop culture. In Korea, celebrities such as Yoo Jae-Seok (유재석) or Park Myung-Soo (박명수) are used to deliver image-based memes. They're the icons of Korean comedy, and their notorious for their starring roles in Infinite Challenge (무한도전). Viewers really like the show. And when I mean "really like the show," I mean eight years worth of liking the show. The first episode aired in 2006, and the program has been running nonstop ever since.
   In America, a series has seasons like Seinfeld, Modern Family, or Community. But Korea doesn't have seasons. They just run the show every week until it finally dies out on its own.
   As the title says, Infinite Challenge has endless obstacles for the cast to overcome, and in their quest to overcome these challenges, they often find themselves in humorous situations. In their horror specials (much like The Treehouse of Horror on the Simpsons), they go through a maze filled with ghosts and other scary monsters, hoping to complete the tasks assigned to them. One of the more memorable episodes had a member of the cast try to balance himself on a surfboard, but he failed miserably. Koreans especially love laughing at comedians performing body humor, so when they see some of their favorite comedians getting hit on the head, falling down, or making weird funny faces, they can't help but laugh.
   
   [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="320" class=" "] "Shut up" - Yoo Jae-Seok[/caption]
   
   At one point, Chuck Norris was all the rage in America, and recently, Jonathan Goldsmith is the biggest image for memes in America. While Korea loves slapstick comedy, Americans can't help but poke fun at almost anything which can range from politics to celebrities. America doesn't rely heavily on body humor, and thus, anything can be used for satire or parodies. Go ahead, name anything in America that people haven't already tried to make fun of. There are thousands of videos about racism, even when human rights activists try so hard to promote equality. Just watch an episode of South Park, and you'll have a general idea of how anything can be used for humor. I didn't think anyone could or would use Christopher Reeves (Superman) as the butt of their joke, but alas, I stood corrected.
   The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are really popular because they can find the humor in anything such as mainstream news medias like Fox News. And there are many other shows that satirically comment on social issues like racism and politics which show Americans generally find humor in situations that don't seem to be funny on the surface. But when American humor digs under that surface, they can laugh at what they find.
   
   [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="320" class=" "] Chuck Noris just got served, which is funny 'cuz he's the one that's supposed to be serving.[/caption]
   
   Though the content may be different, the fact remains pop culture plays a big role in memes. It’s the biggest common factor to which almost everyone can relate. It’s easy to recognize and deliver to audiences, which in turn, goes viral. However, the same cannot be said about…


2. 
   

   Video-based memes

   
   Vine, an app that allows users to shoot a 6 second video, is one of the most popular mediums to deliver short funny videos in America. Koreans, however, rarely use the app. Instead, they cut out certain scenes from sketch comedy programs like Gag Concert or dramas. There aren't many original videos Korean people make. In fact, many of the memes Korean people share are actually ones from abroad, and even then, they're usually videos about people getting hurt or some form of slapstick. There is only so much slapstick people can do without landing themselves in a hospital ward. Thus, most video memes go viral in Korea if they can provide body humor, to which Koreans are so accustomed.
   [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0itk4pUcIvA]
   On the other hand, a lot of the video memes in America are shot by average people hoping to go viral. They have a lot of material to their advantage such as other videos taken from movies or even news footage. One of the most famous to spread throughout the Internet at the moment is the P-O-P clip, in which a young woman leaves a message for her mom and crew as she is hauled away by the police. It's funny because she tries to act tough while in handcuffs, but suddenly breaks down as she gives a shout out to her associates. In America, almost anything and anyone can be used to deliver humor, whereas in Korea, it would be taboo to speak out (even comically)  against social issues.
   [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-rVEs5RLZQ]
   Whether or not the video revolves around slapstick, parody, or satire, these clips need to be delivered. And the best way to spread these memes are…


3. 
   

   Facebook and You Tube

   
   I’ll admit I probably couldn't live without Facebook. I probably check my wall every thirty minutes or so. When I do scroll through Facebook, I generally find myself lost in an endless maze of videos. Sure, Facebook is popular in America, but it’s the biggest growing social network in Korea, and almost everyone has an account. Seven years ago, everyone I knew in Korea had a Cyworld account, but by 2010, they had discarded that social network for Facebook. Back then, everyone would ask for their Cyworld address, but now, they ask whether you're on Facebook or not. Another big distributor of memes is You Tube.
   [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLL2EAR5Yjg]
   Though the contents people watch are different in Korea and America, if anyone needs to find a video for anything, they go to You Tube. The top You Tube videos in Korea are usually clips from TV programs.
   [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v9sMU3FrDg]
   Americans can use almost any video to set as a meme, so there are no guarantees for what will be the next big thing to go viral. Who knew a chubby little kid would obtain notoriety as he gracefully showed the world his refined swordplay with a fake lightsaber?
   [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU]

Memes put a smile on our faces when we’re procrastinating at work, studying for mid-terms, or just generally when we’re faced with boredom. And they’re a great way to spread humor and laughter around the world, especially with the global connections we have today. Though memes vary in each culture, the slow yet gradual overflow of one culture’s memes into another will help us to laugh together, regardless of distance. With all the conflicts and issues throughout the world, wouldn’t it be great to have some humor to uplift this gloomy atmosphere? After all, laughter is the best medicine.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iz_mVgEzqg]