 |
|
 |
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2009-10-21 / 23:52 -
Categorie: Onderzoek
|
|
Many theorist have already expressed their concern with the current copyright system; Simon Frith (1987), Lawrence Lessig (2002), Yochai Benkler (2005), Hal R. Varian (2005), Chris Anderson (2009) and many others. A lot of their arguments are based on cultural development and innovation. Argument from pro copyright organizations on the other hand are not about cultural development or innovation, but about economical consequences, especially about consequences for their own industry and their own company. All arguments against copyright are harming the economic interest of the cultural industry. Simultaneously the pro copyright arguments are seen as a blockage for cultural development and progress. These opposite sites are locking up the debate, creating more polarization instead of both parties coming together. A commission of Dutch parliament has opened up the debate again with a new report that has been reviewed in parliament last Thursday. Giving a higher responsibility to the culture industry in coming up with new innovative business models as an answer to the untenable copyright model.
“If there’s one thing we can predict with certainty it is that by the end of the century copying and reproducing equipment (developed relentlessly by Japanese electronic hardware firms) will be cheaper, better, and more widely owned” (Frith, 1988: p.62). The adoption of the Internet has speed up copying and reproducing with a factor even Simon Frith in 1988 could not predict. Downloading, uploading and sharing are more common on the Internet than ever before. The way the Internet itself is working has already been known problematic. Viewing files required you to download then, copying (copyright protected and unprotected material) onto your PC. These ‘problems’ with the copyright system are not new, they already emerged with the rise of Betamax or any other way of copying. The Internet exponentially expended copying, exposing the problems of the copyright system to a wider audience, making the discussion a general social debate. With this growth the defence of the system started as well. Lawsuits of the cultural industry against consumers and producers, claiming millions; digital right management, preventing you from copying CD’s, DVD’s and downloaded iTunes MP3 files. All these defence mechanisms and the billions of dollars that are being spend to defend the system, while the general public is copying content more than ever, is the most obvious proof that the copyright system is making its last stand. “We see an industry where fabulous amounts of money have been invested and lost because of copyright issues. One must be blind not to observe that copyright is in its final days” (Smiers in Lovink and Rossiter, 2007: p.191).
Instead of looking backward on what went wrong and of promoting an utopian idea of a free culture, a gift economy, I would like to take a look at a more contemporary development in Dutch politics. Because of losses in revenue the cultural industry itself started lobbying in Den Haag (home of Dutch parliament) to have more regulation. Asking parliament to make downloading of content illegal (which currently is not illegal in the Netherlands, only uploading is). Due to the legal nature of this case, Dutch parliament appointed a commission to figure out how Dutch society should deal with copyright in the near future and if it still complies with technological developments in contemporary society. A significant observation of the report is that the commission would also take a look at the social basis for this law.
For a political report, consisting of members from the socialist party, the labor party, the christian-democratic party and the liberal party, it has some interesting conclusions. Researching the development of copyright law, with al it’s adjustments like the law on home copying, loan- and rental law and the levy on blank disc and tapes, the commission concludes that the copyright law actually never finished. It was, in Internet terms, permanently beta (Auteursrechten; een rapport: p.7). Problems have been solved with ad hoc solutions, making the commission realise that the limits of maintaining the copyright model have come to an end.
The problematic with copyright is that it has shifted from a model for protection towards a complete business model, making that the entire cultural industry is now relying on these few untenable laws. This makes it that changing the copyright regime is not only a matter of cultural change alone, it’s will have huge economical consequences and with that, social consequences. A lot of people working in the cultural industry, especially those working for cultural conglomerates, will might lose their job if these companies can no longer protest their work. This makes it that political parties are not enthusiastic about touching this model. It will shift an entire society if copyright is being dropped.
That copyright is in its final stage can been seen in the recommendations of the copyright report. These recommendations will shake the foundation of copyright in Holland. The commission has the opinion that copyright is in a state of crisis, where the only answer of legislators cannot be new policy. Copyright has to be renewed (Auteursrechten; een rapport: p.35). In their recommendations the commission refers to Creative Commons has a possible new model. The Creative Commons however is a problematic model because a legal basis is missing. “This is an uncertain form of contract law that will keep lawyers busy” (Smiers in Lovink and Rossiter, 2007: p.195). The commission, representatives of the legislators, are not willing to take this step.
What the commission is calling for is a paradigm change, not social, cultural or political, but in economical. The cultural industry needs to change its business models. The commission takes BitTorrent sites as an example, stating that these websites make good money with advertisement revenue, suggesting that this model might be a decent model for the cultural industry to start out from. If it is up to the commission, then legislators can start making regulation to limit downloading as soon as these new business models are presented. An illogical conclusion after reading the commission’s observation about the way copyright is maintained and executed.
This report however is still a step towards a Dutch society without copyright law. It is now up to the cultural industry to react with new business models that can count on a solid social basis. It might even unlock the current entailed status of the copyright debate, giving both sides a reason to rethink their arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2009-10-14 / 22:45 -
Categorie: Onderzoek
|
|
Even though the web doesn’t have a central point, sometimes Google, or search engines in general, seem to form the center of this universe. Bringing together all these different websites into one database, ready to be searched. Google’s software, the algorithm, seems to be a aggregator, carrying out contextual analysis and grouping similar websites together. But Google’s search results are just a final result of a seemly more deeper process of software that influences other software. Beneath the surface Google seems to take command in changing the web to their standards.
In 2007, Lev Manovich and his colleagues at the University of California, San Diego (USSD) and the California Institute of Telecommunications and Information (Calit2) started the software studies initiative. They see software as “the [new] center of the global economy, culture, social life, and, increasingly, politics.” (Manovich, 2008: p.3), including blog tools, recommendation systems and search engines. It organizes the Internet and drives the process of globalization by allowing companies to distribute all around the world. According to Manovich “Software is the invisible glue that ties it all together” (ibid.). Manovich calls for a new paradigm in which we start thinking about how software is shaping our culture and how our culture is shaping software (Manovich 2008: p.9).
In line with Manovich’s call for new research I will take a look at Google and their Google Analytics tool, in how this tool is shaping software, and how other software is shaping this tool. Indirectly also how this is shaping culture (in the broadest sense of the word as “the whole way of life”) and how culture is shaping this software. Because of the importance that Manovich is giving software in our culture, as “a new engine of culture”(Manovich 2008: p.10), he states that, in order to say something about culture, a student should at least be known with two software languages (ibid.). In making an analysis of Google Analytics I derive from my own experience as a programmer, making it seemly more easier to understand how software affects your way of working with software, how it changes programming culture.
For those who are not familiar with Google Analytics; it is a Tool for viewing information about your website traffic. As ‘Analytics’ in the software names implies, is it a tool for analyzing this information in varies ways. Allowing you to change filters and conditions to give you another information output. Most webmasters are using this tool, or other related types of software, to analyze their own software. Adjusting their own software based on the analysis they made using a software like Google Analytics.
In this blogpost I will limit myself in looking at the traffic sources part of Google Analytics, more specifically the part which gives an overview of the search engines and the keyword that were used to find your website. These keywords can tell a software or website developer if his software is being found with the keywords that they want to be found with. Most of the time this seems to be mostly important for marketing and economical reasons. Now when these keywords do not match it can be a reason to adjust your own software in such a way that you get better results in search engines.
Fig.1: Screenshot of Google Analytics, search engine seach keywords overview
A development that has been unfolding the last few years, is the use of tags. Now tags are being used to make objects like images or stories better searchable. The use of textual keywords as part of identification and classification long predates computers, like with graffiti. Tags are now a common part of most websites, especially blogs. They seem not only to ease navigation on the website but they also add words to your website making it that the website can step up a spot or even a page in search engine results. In short; the software of Google, and any other related analysis tool, seems to change these websites in a way. Now search words in Google analytics and the use of tags is only one of many examples. There is even a complete new branch working with software to change other software, we call it ‘search engine optimization’ (SEO). This change may be seen as a cultural change, a change in work, a change in how programmers design the software, based on other software. “[…] software re-adjusts and re-shapes everything it is applied to – or at least, it has a potential to do this” (Manovich 2008: p.14).
Google Analytics or Google itself are not just changing the other software according to the information they provide. In that case I would give Google way too much power in the organization of the web. When websites (or software) evolve to optimize their website to get them higher in search engine results, eventually Google will need to adjust their algorithm, like they are doing constantly. Google wins a lot by providing the correct search results, they themselves have to adjust their software according to social and economical demand. But also according to other software. By indexing software, which is changing by the use of Google Tools, Google’s algorithm will need to change as well to still provide the correct search results. Optimizing your website for search engines doesn’t mean that this website should be the best search result for a certain query. This makes it that Google needs to change too.
Now Google Analytics is not the only tool that search engines, like Google, are providing to analyze your website data. For Google the Webmaster Tools and Google AdWords are other important tools in providing about your search result. Which seems in most cases to derive from economical or cultural factors. Better search results equals more visitors, equals more money? As Manovich states “Various social and economic factors […] also constrain possible directions of software evolution” (2008, p.62). It seems to me more and more important to understand how software works. It seems to change our culture, our social and economical systems and even other software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2009-10-08 / 22:48 -
Categorie: Onderzoek
|
|
Have you ever had that moment were you where looking at someone else's social network site profile and wondered about the amount of friends this person had? A person with more than 10.000 friends for example? And that you thought; "he can never ever have that many friends in real life, this must be somebody with no life at all and adds everyone he can add just to look important"? Well, I had these thoughts! Surfing across my favorite social network site, amazed by the amount of friends some people have. I figured out that I was not alone, the newspapers and in popular language, people were talking about this ridiculous amount of friends.
I wondered what this would actuality do with your social status. These people patently added people to look like they had a lot of friends and to show-off how important they must be. But it seemed to me that they were accomplishing the direct opposite of their intensions. By having to many friends they lost their credibility. Their offline social status seemed to be suffering under the pressure of their online social status. As Boyd already points out in here article 'Friendship' (2008); most people seem to use social network sites as a way to keep track of their offline friends. Which would imply that their social status online and offline have a direct link as well. Last year I wrote a paper on 'The status of our social status' (Heijboer, 2009: in Dutch only [PDF]) in which I finally conclude that our offline social status and our online social status seems to be intertwined so much together that not having a social network site profile will affect your offline social status too. Which means for my generation and the next that not participating in social media will affect your offline social status; we have seemed to lost our free will to participate in these social media. Especially in communication and media branches you're sort of obligated to participate in order to keep up. If you're not on SNSs you do not exist
In this post I will reflect the most important findings from my paper, which was directed at LinkedIn, onto Twitter to see how Twitter seems to affects our social status.
Our social status is not universal, it depends on the person we share our characteristics with. We are part of different domains. Within these domains we can have our own social status, like online gamers can have within a very closed community. We can also decide not to continue any more in any of these domains and make a fresh start in another domain (Wilkinson, 2006: p.8). We can see Twitter as a complete different domain, but like every domain it has some sort of influence on your overall social status. Like for example World of Warcraft players; the social status these players have inside World of Warcraft can be seen as something negative in a broader domain. Playing World of Warcraft online for a longer period of time, which in most cases is needed to get any real meaningful social status in these kind of games, can be seen from the perspective of a domain in which people do not play World of Warcraft, as like this person has no live, which gives a negative influence on your overall social status. Now the same goes for social media; what you do online can affect your social status offline. Making yourself popular on the web by bashing your boss will probably not make you very popular in the office. In most cases "[…] you're likely to be quite well aware of the other mountains (domains) around you that make yours look in comparison like a low-grade class of a gently sloping foothill, or perhaps even in slightly upraised knob in the middle of a steep declination" as Henry Farrell points out (Farrell, 2006). We are aware of this connection between our offline and online social status. That is why most people do not bash their boss on the web because they know that there is always someone from another domain keeping an eye on things. In order to keep this post simple I will try to limit my focus here onto the domain of Twitter itself. What influences your social status on Twitter?
Our social status is complicated, it seems to derive from different factors; from visual characteristic, like the car you drive and the job you have, to non-visual characteristics; like the amount of money you make and which important people are part of your acquaintances. All these characteristics give us a position in the hierarchy of social status (Wilkinson, 2006: p.3 [PDF]). Because Twitter is in its essence so simple we can distinguish a few basic characteristic that might influence your social status. First there is the number of Tweets that you have, then in the same category there is the number of ReTweets and @Tweets. Secondly there are the number of Followers you have and who these followers are. Having important people as your followers can affect your social status. Third and last are there the people you follow yourself, who they are and their personal social status can affect your social status.
The way in which a social status from someone else is influencing your own social status is something really difficult to measure yourself and for other. I personally even think that it depends on who actually knows the person you are following or followed by. If you have never heard of Chris Anderson it is difficult to predict what that will have as an impact on your social status. The same goes for the content of your tweets. What that for impact has on your social status seems to depend those people who are reading your tweets. This is, I personally think, that most people therefore concentrate on their own statistics when on the actual content or the social status of others. In social network sites we have seen a hype of people just adding other people just to have friends. "At the beginning, I was just adding people just to get friends…" (Interview with Lolo in Boyd, 2008). In the hierarchy of social status this evolves into a status race (Wilkinson 2006: p.8). "[…] status competition involves group members evaluating themselves relative to their colleagues according to some shared value scale" (Bezroukov, 1999). Which in social network sites has translated itself into a friendship race; who has the most friends. "What happening on LinkedIn for a while, and some people still think so, is that when you have a lot of contacts you are more important" (Interview with Ayman in Heijboer, 2009).
Fig.1: Example; Andrew Keen's followers status.
This friendship race in Twitter is problematic because there is a fundamental difference in how twitter works compared to traditional social network sites. In twitter you are unable to add followers yourself, while in social network sites you can invite other people to be your friend. Twitter also makes a distinction between people who are following you and people you are following yourself. This complicated the status race, because people now actually need to concentrate on their content. Interesting content will attract more followers. In this way the number of followers actually seems to say something about your tweets and your social status, people who are following you are actually thinking that you are interesting enough to follow, which will affect your twitter status, and eventually may well affect your offline social status. Having 10.000 followers on Twitter are real people interested in you and your tweets.
Even though it seems that the status race is problematic on Twitter, people do still try to create a status race. Not by adding followers, because this is impossible, but by adding people to follow, in the hope that these people will return the favor and start following them as well. 'I scratched your back, you must now scratch mine', which is in fact not that different compared to the way LinkedIn users are trying to get recommendations. They add a recommendation to someone else's profile in the hope this person will return the favor by writing a recommendation for them. But this way of luring people onto your followers list seems very elaborate. You need to invest a lot of time adding people and you have no guaranty that they will return the favor. This makes your numbers of followers a more reliable characteristic for your social status then the number of friends you have on social network sites. The main question about this issue on social network sites was used to be; which number of friends is still reliable and from what point on it is not. On Twitter this seems to be the other way around; from which point on are you a serious Twitter user; in such a way that it will affect your social status positively?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2009-09-28 / 00:06 -
Categorie: Onderzoek
|
|
When I was young, although with 26 years of age I'm not old, so let's say; when I was younger, most of the time when I wasn't in school I was playing with my friends on the streets. Playing street football (soccer for our American friends), organizing all kind of crazy clubs, building tree houses in the woods behind my house or simply avoiding to much sun by hanging in the shadow with my friends. I think I managed to maintain this until I was 18 years old or so, after that I was just hanging around with my friends; talking, walking and just having fun.
Nobody had any problems with us hanging around or walking through a street. Sure, I misbehaved sometimes, but the neighbors just called my parents or in some cases the police, but most of the time I got off with a firm lecture or a punishment from my parents. In our contemporary society this as changed dramatically. Youth that is hanging around in city centers, shopping malls or even football courts are nowadays being labeled as small criminals. When misbehaving the police is called and in most cases they instantly get a fine (at least that is how the policy is in the city where I live; Rotterdam). In some streets or popular places for youth, like shopping malls, it is prohibited for them to gather with more than 3 friends. Mosquito's, a device that is making a very high frequency noise, needs to make sure that youth is moving to other locations in the city.
Youth is no longer welcome on the streets, especially in larger cities in the Netherlands. They are 'encouraged' with all kind of measurements to stay indoors. "Teens are increasingly monitored and many have been pressured out of public spaces such as streets, parks, malls, and libraries" (Buckingham in Boyd 2008). In my view our Youth has been degraded to second class citizens.
It's no news that, because of this, Teens are seeking for a new social places, and that social media are functioning as one of these new social places. Danah Boyd (2008) describes how Social Networking Sites are being used as new places to 'hang out' and socially interact with people they know from school or sport clubs. In 'Mobile Phones, Japanese Youth, and the Re-Placement of Social Contact', Mizuko Ito (2005) points out to us how the Japanese Youth is using mobile phones to work around the system. How they manage to have social interaction through social media with their friends while being enclosed by institutional limitations. According to Danah Boyd, social media are used to extend Teens social network. "Social Media mirror, magnify, and extend everyday social worlds" (Boyd, 2008). I would like to argue that SNSs are not extending social interaction but are replacing social interaction. Not in a way that friends online are different but in a way that offline social places have been replaced by digital social places.
The consequence of this is that social control at these places is almost gone. Parents don't have a clue what their teens are doing online. Cyberbullying, child grooming and Internet addiction are just a few examples of incidents that occur on social network sites. Even though it is just a very small percentage of the Teens that actually experience these practices it is being addressed as a problem that is larger than that of offline social places. New political policy is being made or is already made to prevent these practices from happening. Even though it is a good initiative to prevent negative influences to penetrate social network sites, it is being done with the idea that social network sites are something bad. Policy is made with the idea that social network sites are not the place for Teens to be. Again our Youth is being 'encouraged' not to go there.
This is the social paradox of social network sites. On the one hand policy is preventing Teens to handout on streets, in shopping malls or sport courts which forces them to find another social place to 'handout', on the other hand are Social Network Sites being submerged in a bath of negative approaches, trying to prevent Teens from exposing themselves on these social places.
My statement about this is not based on some random thoughts. We have seen it before, at least in the Netherlands. Teens are being driven away from social places, starting their own. For a while, especially in small town in the Netherlands, teens started to form groups around sheds. Sheds standing in the middle of farmland where they could hang out without interference. Lack of social control on these places lead these Teens to turn these sheds into full-service bars. They started drinking until some started to pass out and went into a coma. 'Coma-Drinking' (coma zuipen) is a word in Dutch language that has been deducted from these incidents. Policy and new control needs to prevent this from happening. In some cases these sheds have been removed, which led the teens to search for a new social place.
I do not want to reduce the social network sites as only a place where teens go because they are no longer welcome in offline social places. I do however question how social network sites would have looked like if we would not have these social problems with teens? Personally I would like to see social network sites as an extension of our normal social place and our social interaction. However, with current development in society and our way of looking at teens I can only conclude that one reason for using social network sites is as an escape from offline social places.
I wonder what this has as effect for the future. Are these new generations going to have online dating instead of offline dating? Are they going to have cybersex when they are ready for it or will offline social contact still be possible? I'm not arguing that this is right or wrong, but what we do need to think about is what we want as a society. Do we want our kids to have such a future or do we wish them to have the same development and cultivation like we had? When are we going to treat the next generation as the next generation instead of something that stands in the way of social development of our society? Social network sites are popular because they don't judge their members. When are we, as a society, going to learn from social network sites?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2009-09-20 / 19:28 -
Categorie: Media
|
|
A conflict usually has two or more oppositional factions. They all have their own reason for this conflict, they all have a different point of view on this conflict, and most important; they do not agree with each other on who is right or wrong. These points of views are not only visible in what the opposing factions say but also how they say it. A huge part of the conflict is a conflict of terminology, which in a lot of cases seems to be supported by media coverage. Media seems to express the point of view of the country they are located in, or have alliances with.
The words terrorist and freedom fighter for example are politically charges words. A terrorist implies a negative approach, the use of violence and threats to coerce a curtain political purposes. The use of the word freedom fighter on the other hand, implies a positive approach; it is a use of violence to battle against established forces of tyranny and dictatorship. Both words however carry the load of the word violence and they both seem to strive after political change. It seems that the word terrorist and freedom fighter is used depending on the side of which the people, politicians or the media are on.
For example; in 1988 a bombing took place on flight Pan Am 103. The plane crashed nearby the Scottish city Lockerbie and took 270 lives (incl. 11 on ground). After years of investigation and allegations the Libyan agent Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was convicted for the bombing and got a life sentence. The speculated reason for the bombing was revenge for the conflict between Libya and the USA in 1981 in the Gulf of Sidra, where two Libyan radio ships were destroyed. In august this year Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was released, putting the spotlight back on this (political) issue. Western media spoke of the terrorist being released while in Libya Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was praised as a freedom fighter and a hero. This issue seems to be a great example as a conflict of terminology.
For the record, I do not agree with both terminologies of a terrorist or a freedom fighter. Especially as a scientist or media reporter you should always, at least try to keep a neutral point-of-view, the same point-of-view Wikipedia for example tries to ambition. It seems a good intent to ambition such a point-of-view, but will it reach? Wikipedia is a media as well, a worldwide media. Does this mean that is has a worldwide point-of-view on all issues? And what exactly is such a worldwide point-of-view? Is it neutral? And what about all the different languages that are supported on Wikipedia, do they all have the same point-of-view?
With this in mind, I observed the different pages that are about the Lockerbie bombing on Wikipedia. I started out with the Dutch Wikipedia entry about the Lockerbie bombing. It clearly states that it was a terrorist attack, carried out by a Libyan terrorist. Not really a very neutral point-of-view in my opinion. Taken a look at the Arabic entry it opened up an entire new point-of-view. Not only does the entry not speak of terrorists – related to this event – but it even accuses the United States of blaming different countries for the bombing bases on their political benefits of that time. It even states that the trial was “a political trial, not criminal” (translation from the Arabic Wikipedia entry) and that the outcome was already determined before the trail even started.
Based on this small observation I was under the impression that Wikipedia might had a segregation between Western entries and Arabic entries (concerning this subject). When taken a look at the English entry the word terrorism appears about 6 to 7 times, which could confirm my hypothesis of a segregation between Western and Arabic entries. When taken a look at the Swedish entry, a country with a democratic socialist background, it only mentions terrorists once, in a quote of the UN Security Council Resolution 748. Why was the word terrorist on this western page not mentioned more than once? Would it have anything to do with the political climate of the country of origin? The Netherlands and England entries, both countries with a rich history of labour parties in power, mentioned the word terrorist multiple times. Sweden a country with a socialist background mentioned it only once, in a quote. Would Wikipedia be a country or language point-of-view bases media?
Until then I had only checked the Dutch, English, Arabic and Swedish entries of the Lockerbie bombing. I took two extremists countries first before examining them all. France and Italy have recently changed to a right-conservative political climate, president Sarkozy (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) in France and prime minister Berlusconi (Il Popolo della Libertà) in Italy. To my surprise the France entry did not contain the word terrorism at all, and the Italian page mentioned it only once. Shattering my theory of a country / language point-of-view for Wikipedia.
What makes it that some Wikipedia entries speak of a terrorist attack and what makes it that other speak of it from a more neutral point of view? Or in the case of the Arabic entry, a complete opposite view of the Lockerbie bombing as not begin a terrorist attack. Could it be that the conservative population of France doesn’t care about Wikipedia and that neutral contributors are in the majority? Or are some editors, like the Dutch and English editors, not doing their job correctly in checking for a neutral point-of-views?
This blog entry off course is just a small observation, not a complete research. Maybe there is no correlation between how many times the word terrorism is used and the language the entry is written in, maybe there is. I propose more empirical research toward this subject. The amount of time Wikipedia is now being consulted for information is exponentially grown the last few years. Their claim of a neutral point-of-view seems not to be true, and users of Wikipedia should at least be notified about this. They should definitely change their policy dramatically like the BCC did. With the small observation I have done, I think I can claim for sure that Wikipedia does not have a neutral point-of-view. My hypothesis of Wikipedia having a western of country / language based point-of-view seem to be false as well. My observations were only limited to the search for the word terrorism or related words. I did not real all entries to analyse their standpoint. Analysing the complete entries and perhaps find out who are responsible for the Wikipedia entries for each country would shed some light on this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2009-09-13 / 23:54 -
Categorie: Innovaties
|
|
In our age of computer mediated images the distinction between reality and the virtual seems to be more blurred than ever. The white beach with palm trees, coconuts and turquoise ocean is no longer that white beach, it has been mediated to a bounty beach. The images we have seen in TV-commercials are mediated into reality. But what experience is more real? Is the experience of a bounty beach, instead of a genuine white beach experience, false or less real? The experience of the user and the fading of reality and vitality is a central theme in the work of Koert van Mensvoort.
During one of my New Media Theory lectures in 2005, when I was still a student at Rotterdam University of applied sciences, the subject was reality and vitality and I got my first Koert van Mensvoort experience. His documentary 'The woods smell of shampoo' got me to think that there is more to it then practical application. Until that time I was only focused on doing my practical work by the book, trying to do it as good as possible. Van Mensvoort was the first theorist that inspired me to look beyond the surface. This resulted in me going to the University of Amsterdam to study Media and Culture, to which I'm - at this moment of writing - a Master Student in New Media. So when I got his new printed book 'What You See Is What You Feel', I had some pretty high expectations, and he didn't disappoint me at all.
'What You See Is What You Feel' is Koert van Mensvoort's doctoral dissertation, on which he promoted at Eindhoven University of Technology. In this research the distinction between reality and vitality is again his starting point. With his documentary 'The woods smell of shampoo' as an example - in which a girl who lives in the city, never visited the woods, and washes her hair with shampoo, that smells like pine tree, visits the woods one day with her father and says "Daddy, the woods smell like shampoo" - Van Mensvoort wants to point out the influence of mediated images in our every day live and discuss the realness of these mediated images. As he puts it; is this girl spoiled by the media or is this child merely fine-tuned herself with the environment she grows up with? According to Van Mensvoort "media technologies are gradually but certainly attaining a level of authority within our society that consequently increases their realness" (van Mensvoort, 2009: p. 14). Van Mensvoort's research is aimed at, maybe the most influential media technologies of our time; the Graphical User Interface (GUI) .
The GUIs we know nowadays are based on our visual perception, and in some cases combined with sound. Our other senses are not being stimulated while working with a GUI. Taste, smell and touch are not used when getting information from a GUI. Koert van Mensvoort's research aim is to "contribute to a richer and more physical paradigm of graphical user interfaces" (van Mensvoort, 2009: p. 17). To back this up he demonstrates the importance of touch and the ability to feel in the first chapter of the book. By adding touch he want to enrich the user experience while using this GUI.
This desire to add touch to the computer GUI is not new, mechanical haptic feedback already exists for a while. The most known example of this, is maybe the force feedback joysticks supplied with gaming consoles. When getting shot down in a shoot 'em up game for example, the joystick will vibrate to simulate your death. For the computer, mechanical haptic feedback devices are available but as Van Mensvoort points out in his book they are not widely available, which results in not that many software that is programmed to give force feedback, which results in even less development of new mechanical haptic feedback devices. Because of this problem he aims for a solution without having to introduce any new hardware that is not yet available in every modern home. Another issue he points out is the current GUI we are used to, with its Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointing devices (WIMP). It is so commonly known that it will be hard to introduce any major changes in well known GUIs. The aim of the research is therefore to make use of current WIMPs as much as possible. The result is Optically Simulated Haptic Feedback.
Inspired by renaissance painters - who mathematically and atmospherically enhanced the presents of their work, by using optical tricks - van Mensvoort developed an Optically Simulated Haptic Feedback (OSHF). Seeing the similarities between the canvas and the screens gave Van Mensvoort the idea to apply these optical tricks to the GUI. These optical simulations will give the user a feeling of actual shapes or textures. This is done by active cursor displacement. Holes en Hills are Van Mensvoort's favorite objects to test it out. When a user tries to hover over a visual hill the cursor is pushed away from it, when the user tries to hover over a visual hole the cursor is pulled in, giving the user the experience of actually hovering over physical hills and holes on the screen.
In chapter three and four of the book Van Mensvoort explains how he subjected test subjects to different experiments to test his thesis. These chapters are pretty technical, especially if you have no mathematical or programming experience. From my humanities and sociological perspective these chapters where the least interesting. The chapters contain a lot of mathematical formulas and complicated diagrams. The most interesting were the final results of the tests, explaining that the majority of the users preferred Optically Simulated Haptic Feedback over Mechanical Simulated Haptic Feedback and that while using OSHF the test subjects did their work more efficient and with fever mistakes. So OSHF will not only enhance our visual experience but will also help us do our work quicker and with less errors. Chapter three and four are probably required to complete his doctoral dissertation, but if there is ever going to be a second edition of the book I suggest to shorten it to the most imported results. In the meanwhile, readers who are not interested in all the experiments and mathematical formulas, I suggest you skip these chapters.
More interesting on the other hand is Chapter 5 in which Van Mensvoort presents his software toolkit 'PowerCursor'. This software toolkit needs to help interaction designers to easily implement the OSHF in their interfaces. He describes in detail what the toolkit provides and how it can be used. It seems to me a very interesting chapter if you are an interaction designer. With a lot of practical examples, Van Mensvoort gives you enough inspiration on how to use the toolkit and in what cases you can use visual force feedback to optimize your interface. When taking a critical look at this chapter I can only comment that the research for the most suitable technique seems to be out of date. Concluding that flash is the best technique for this toolbox - when researching pretty old techniques like DHTML+Javascript and Director and not exploring more recent techniques like Silverlight and AJAX - is in my opinion a hasty research and conclusion. The outcome of the toolkit however is amazing and a very good first attempt in enriching interfaces with optical haptic feedback.
Even though I'm charmed by Van Mensvoort's efforts to enrich the user experience of the GUI, I'm somewhat uncertain about the overall though on this research. My personal appreciation for Van Mensvoort work is that he dares to ask the question what is real, but does not take side within this discussion. He point out that the idea of the woods smelling of shampoo can be experienced very real by the city girl. My question arises then why Van Mensvoort is trying to make the GUI more real? What exactly is not real about the current GUI experience that we need to change it? Even though I like the way he manages to add a sense of thought to the GUI, I'm in doubt if it was ever even needed.
My final critic is about the implementation. I'm somewhat skeptical about the results compared to his larger aim of make computer simulation more real. In 'The Synthetic Image and Its Subject' Lev Manovich point us to a property of new media, which exposing it's technique to the user. Compared to film, in which there is no interactivity between the user and the screen, the picture is experienced more real, according to Manovich. The use of a keyboard or mouse are one of these techniques that are exposed when using new media. By making the mouse cursor more important in haptic feedback I'm not sure if this is an actual step forward or a step backward for the reality experience of new media, or more specific the GUI. According to Lev Manovich these techniques need to disappear to the back in order to make the experience more real. Is making the mouse more important helping to achieve this?
Beside these few critical notes I'm impressed by Koert van Mensvoort's research. The outcome is interesting and may even be the starting point of a new paradigm of visual interaction design. The book is written in a very understandable way, with lot of images and examples to supports his research. Professional jargon is explained in detail which make is an easy accessible book for less experienced readers of haptic feedback. Overall this book is a must read for every professional interaction designer and a recommendation to everyone who is interested in the future of interaction design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2008-06-24 / 13:55 -
Categorie: Stage
|
|
Na 4 maanden ploeteren in het zonovergoten Portugal (tjonge jonge wat hebben we een medelijden) is dan eindelijk mijn scriptie en afstudeerproject af. Met trots presenteer ik hier; FuturADS.
"FuturADS is a new in-game advertisement platform that hopes to solve the problems of small and medium enterprises. During the development I took extra interest in developing a concept with a high exposure time and rate, to make it an interactive advertisement format, would meet the wishes of small and medium enterprises for conversion objectives and would not interfere the gamer in its game experience. The result is a platform where all parties; publisher, advertiser and target group benefit from."
Mijn complete scriptie, de businesscase en de promotionele trailer kunt u op deze pagina bekijken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2008-03-27 / 17:11 -
Categorie: Game Ads.
|
|
Games is het nieuwe promotie medium voor elk merk dat bij de tijd is. In-game advertisement is booming! eMarketer voorspelde vorig jaar al dat deze jonge markt exponentieel zou gaan groeien. Binnen 4 jaar zou de totale uitgaven aan in-game advertisement verdubbelen naar bijna 2 miljard. Recente onderzoeken voorspellen zelfs nog meer. Het is dan ook niet gek dat er steeds meer onderzoek gedaan wordt naar de mogelijkheden van games als promotie medium.
Tussen 2005 en 2007 deden verscheidene onderzoekbureaus onderzoek naar doelgroepen binnen games. In het kader van mijn scriptie heb ik van deze onderzoeken er vier vergeleken en gekeken waar de overeenkomsten zitten. Deze vier onderzoeken zijn afkomstig van JupiterResearch (2005), Park associates (2006), NPD Group (2007) en de Boston Research Group (2007). De uitkomst van deze onderzoeken geven een segmentatie van op basis van gedrag en demografie (NPD Group en JupiterResearch), motivatie en attitude (Boston Research Group) en Park associates baseerde zijn onderzoek op hetzelfde als de Boston Research Group maar voegde daar het element gedrag nog aan toe.
De uitkomsten van alle onderzoeken zijn geheel verschillend. Zo hebben twee van de vier onderzoeken 6 segmenten en de overige twee hebben er 5. Daarnaast heeft JupiterResearch geheel verschillende segmenten die hoofdzakelijk gebaseerd zijn op waarom het segment bepaalde games speelt terwijl de andere segmentaties meer gebaseerd zijn op tijd, geld en op wat voor soort medium ze spelen (PC, console, handheld). De segmenten zien er als volgt uit:
Aan de hand van de cijfers en feiten die bekend zijn van deze bestaande segmentaties heb ik zoveel mogelijk segmentaties bij elkaar geplaatst. Uit deze 4 verschillende segmentaties ontstaat vervolgens een nieuwe segmentatie die ik graag wil voorleggen. De segmentatie bestaat uit 6 segmenten: de Core Gamer, de Wannabe Gamer, de Leisure Gamer, de Social Gamer, de Relax Gamer en de Simple Gamer.
De Core Gamer is de traditionele hardcore gamer. Spelen veel online, besteden veel geld aan games en bestaat voor een groot gedeelte uit jonge mannen. De Wannabee Gamer is net zo gedreven als de core gamer maar heeft vanwege vanwege vrienden, familie, werk of studie gesprek aan tijd om te kunnen gamen. De Leisure Gamer speelt vooral casual games en bestaat voor een groot gedeelte uit vrouwelijke gamers. Ze geven weinig geld uit aan games en spelen vooral om de tijd te doden. De Social Gamer speelt, zoals de naam al zegt, voornamelijk games om sociale contacten te onderhouden of om nieuwe contacten te maken. De Relax Gamer speelt vooral om te relaxen en even te ontsnappen aan de dagelijkse werkelijkheid. De Simple Gamer tenslotte speelt vooral eenvoudige games. Niet eenvoudig in de trant dat je gemakkelijk kunt winnen maar games die vooral eenvoudig te leren zijn.
Verdere uitleg en toelichting zijn te vinden in het eerste hoofdstuk van mijn scriptie en in de bronnen onder dit artikel (worden niet weergegeven op de voorpagina). Feedback op deze ‘nieuwe’ segmentatie is meer dan welkom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2008-02-06 / 16:16 -
Categorie: Marketing
|
|
De markt wordt steeds drukker, steeds meer bedrijven die dezelfde doelgroep proberen te bereiken. Marketingbudgetten worden steeds groter, oude- en nieuwe media raken verzadigd van de reclame uitingen en de doelgroep ziet door de bomen het bos niet meer. Opvallen is voor veel bedrijven dan ook een hele uitdaging geworden en vooral voor kleinere bedrijven met kleinere marketingbudgetten is het steeds lastiger geworden een doelgroep aan zich te binden. Veel bedrijven zoeken daarom naar nieuwe manieren om tussen al die uitingen op te vallen. Guerrillamarketing wordt steeds vaker genoemd maar is dat het marketing instrument waar we op zitten te wachten?
Guerrillamarketing bestaat al heel lang en werd in 1984 voor het eerste beschreven door Jay Conrad Levinson in het gelijknamige boek. Zijn visie op guerrillamarketing was dat je met een klein budget een zo groot mogelijk resultaat probeerde te behalen. Voornamelijk door op te vallen en onverwachts ergens op te duiken. Guerrillamarketing is eigenlijk bedoeld voor de kleinere  bedrijven die het moeten opboksen tegen de grotere bedrijven, niet voor niks de term 'guerrilla'. Wij tegen de rest! Het is daarom opvallend te noemen dat je guerrilla marketing voornamelijk toegepast ziet worden door grotere bedrijven als sportmerk Nike, condoom fabrikant Durex, levensmiddelen producent Unilever (Axe) en printer specialist Hewlett-Packard.
Het voornaamste doel van guerrillamarketing is sympathie kweken en gratis publiciteit los te weken voor je product, dienst of standpunt. Guerrillamarketing wordt daarom vaak ook wel Guerrilla-PR genoemd. Met het kleine budget dat je beschikbaar hebt probeer je een onverwacht beeld neer te zetten dat vervolgens moet leiden tot een buzz, zowel onder mensen zelf als in de media. Dat beeld is heel belangrijk, want zonder beeld hebben media niks om te laten zien en tekst alleen vergeten mensen al vrij snel. Het bekende gezegde 'een beeld zegt meer dan 1000 woorden' is er niet voor niets. Het woordje buzz moet je in deze context overigens niet te verwarren met buzz-marketing. Het verschil tussen buzz-marketing en guerrillamarketing zit hem in de overtuiging. Waarbij je met guerrillamarketing vooral wil opvallen en ervoor wil zorgen dat er over de actie en het merk gepraat wordt moet je bij buzz-marketing een selectieve groep overtuigen van je product zodat deze groep het weer verder door verteld aan hun vrienden en kennissen. Een goed voorbeeld van buzz-marketing is de campagne van de nieuwe film Cloverfield waar ik enige tijd geleden al over berichtte.
Guerrillamarketing kan als los en enige marketing uiting gebruikt worden maar is in veel van de gevallen onderdeel van een veelzijdige marketingmix. En dat is niet zo gek. Guerrillamarketing heeft voornamelijk als doel om een buzz en gratis publiciteit te genereren omtrent de actie en heeft niet als doel mensen van het product te overtuigen. Guerrillamarketing wordt daarom vaak toegepast om een campagne af te trappen of kracht bij te zetten. In dit soort gevallen is het dan ook belangrijk dat de guerrilla-actie past binnen de gehele communicatie strategie. Een goed voorbeeld in dit verlengde is en blijft de guerrilla-actie van Unilever. Al jaren zet unilever zijn deodorantlijn Axe in de markt als de aantrekkingskracht voor vrouwen. In elke reclame rennen de vrouwen, als vliegen op de stroop, naar de man die net een product van Axe heeft gebruikt. In hun guerrilla-actie voeren ze dit door met de exit bordjes die op verschillende plaatsen hangen. Behalve dat het goed aansluit bij de algehele communicatiestrategie, levert het ook nog eens een leuk plaatje op en duikt het op in kranten, tijdschriften en op blogs.
De overtuigingskracht van guerrillamarketing is niet groot. Het geeft je merk, product of standpunt de nodige aandacht maar zegt over het merk of product verder heel erg weinig. In veel van de gevallen wordt er namelijk geschreven over de actie zelf en niet zo zeer over het merk of product. Hierin zit volgens mij ook de zwakte van guerrillamarketing en volgens mij ook de reden waarom het door veel kleine bedrijven nog niet zoveel wordt toegepast. Guerrillamarketing is vaak onderdeel van een grotere campagne en voor die campagne zijn ook weer middelen nodig. Middelen die kleinere bedrijven vaak niet hebben. Cor Hospes schrijft in zijn boek 'Guerrilla marketing, nieuwe sluitroutes naar het hart van je klant' hierover; "Niettemin kunnen guerrilla-acties zonder een buzz of publicitair slotoffensief een stille dood sterven". Vooral dat laatste is in deze context heel belangrijk. Dit is het gedeelte waarin je de klant overtuigd van de kwaliteiten van jouw product en van de klant uiteindelijk een 'believer' maakt.
In Nederland wordt guerrilla marketing helaas nog niet zoveel toegepast. Vooral in de Verenigde Staten zie je steeds meer guerrillamarketing. Een aantal goede voorbeelden vanuit daar zijn die campagne van DHL en HBO. In de algehele campagne van DHL stond de slogan "Brought to you by DHL" centraal. De guerrilla campagne sloot hier perfect op aan. In  diverse steden plaatste DHL doosjes rond verschillende objecten met daarop de tekst "If it is where it belongs it was probably delivered by DHL". Het paste perfect in de algehele communicatiestrategie, was origineel, viel op en zorgde voor een buzz. HBO lanceerde voor haar hitserie 'The Soporanos' een guerrillacampagne waar uit de achterkant van de vele gele taxi's in New York een hand hing. Alsof er een lijk in de kofferbak lag. De actie was onverwacht, origineel en zorgde voor veel gratis publiciteit.
In Nederland zien we vooral veel ludieke acties. Zo gooide de staatsloterij rond de jaarwisseling van 2004/2005 staatsloten van de euromast. Het veroorzaakte enorm veel media aandacht maar doordat de actie ver van te voren was aangekondigd spreken we hier niet meer van guerrilla marketing maar van een ludieke actie. Het was guerrilla geweest als ze deze onaangekondigd door bijvoorbeeld het centrum van Rotterdam zouden verspreiden. Zo ook de actie van FBTO. Toen de gorilla Bokito losbrak in Blijdorp praatte iedereen in Nederland erover. Bokito werd zelf een regelrechte hype. Kranten berichten dat Bokito zou doordraaien als mensen heb directe aankeken. FBTO sprong hier leuk op in door een bril uit te delen waarop de ogen niet vooruit maar naar de rechterbovenhoek wezen. Hierdoor leek het alsof je ergens anders naar keek. De brillen moesten echter worden uitgedeeld en voor elke bezoeker was er een aparte bril. Hierdoor was het technisch gezien niets meer dan een goede flyer actie. De hoge materiaal kosten en personeelskosten maken het geen guerrilla actie. Het zorgde wel voor een hoop publiciteit en was daarmee zeker een geslaagde ludieke actie.
Over het algemeen mag je bovenstaande goede en slechte voorbeelden eigenlijk zo ie zo niet rekenen tot de guerrilla marketing. Het woord guerrilla impliceert tenslotte dat het gaat om een kleine groep die tegen een veel grotere en machtigere groep vecht. Bovenstaande voorbeelden zijn van bedrijven die veel middelen tot hun beschikking hebben en toch zeker niet tot de kleintjes gerekend mogen worden. Maar guerrilla marketing kan ook niet zonder een vervolgcampagne en hierdoor is het voor veel kleinere bedrijven dan ook lastig om deze vorm van marketing in te zetten. We spreken dan vaak ook over veel geld. Deze twee verschillenden redenen geven aan waarom de term guerrilla marketing eigenlijk slecht gekozen is. Het is bedoeld voor de 'underdog' maar omdat het vaak afhankelijk is van meerdere communicatiemiddelen heb je toch nog een aanzienlijk marketingbudget nodig waardoor het vaak door grotere bedrijven wordt toegepast. Maar dat zijn geen 'guerrillastrijders'.
Als we de betekenis van het woord guerrilla even laten varen en ons meer richten op de inhoud dan is guerrilla marketing zeker een serieus marketing instrument. Het is een manier om uit te vallen tussen het versnipperende medialandschap van televisiecommercials, advertenties in kranten en tijdschriften, banners op websites en reclameboodschappen op de radio. Het is een goede manier om op te vallen en gratis publiciteit te genereren. En dat is natuurlijk ook de essentie van guerrilla marketing. Onverwacht ergens meer geconfronteerd worden (opvallen / overvallen) en daarmee zoveel mogelijk gratis publiciteit losweken. Guerrilla marketing is in die context gewoon de enige manier goede manier om dat te bereiken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auteur: Harro Heijboer -
Geplaatst op: 2008-01-29 / 15:05 -
Categorie: Game Ads.
|
|
Afgelopen zondag zond het actuele documentaireprogramma Zembla een documentaire uit over Gameverslaving. Jongeren, ouders en deskundige kwamen aan het woord om te praten over hun eigen gameverslaving of die van een familielid of vriend. De documentaire gaat voornamelijk over het online multiplayer spel World of Warcraft. We maken in het begin kennis met Jeroen en Pipa. Twee jongeren die beide World of Warcraft spelen. Pipa komt oorspronkelijk uit Engeland en heeft Jeroen in World of Warcraft ontmoet. Ze konden het in het spel goed vinden en ze is daarom na het afronden van haar studie naar Nederland verhuist. Jeroen is met zijn studie gestopt en zit nu thuis waar ze beide meer dan 8 uur per dag World of Warcraft spelen. Jeroen heeft nog geprobeerd andere studies te beginnen maar kan zich niet concentreren en gaat vervolgens weer World of Warcraft spelen.
5 tot 10 procent van de gamers is er zo aan toe zo zeggen deskundige, ze zijn game verslaafd. Het is volgens de documentaire makers een groot maatschappelijk probleem en wordt door de huidige gezondheidszorg onderschat. Deze gameverslaafde jongeren stoppen met school of werk en zien hun vrienden niet of nauwelijks meer. In plaats daarvan  spelen ze online om hun 'characters' nog beter te maken en nieuwe items te ontdekken, zo ontdekte de vrienden uit Southpark ook. Om de gamers in hun behoeften te voorzien voegt de maker van World of Warcraft, Blizard, steeds nieuwe werelden, levens en items toe. Game producenten zouden zelfs zo ver gaan dat ze spellen express verslavend zouden maken, zo zegt Hyke van der Heijden, voormalig game ondernemer. Maar wat is hiervan nu echt waar?
De verslavende factor van games ligt op twee verschillende gebieden. Zowel lichamelijk als geestelijk. Het menselijk lichaam heeft van zichzelf een eigen drug genaamd endorfine. Deze stof komt vrij zodra je iets buitengewoons hebt gepresteerd of je ergens enorm op je gemak voelt, bijvoorbeeld als je verliefd bent. Je krijgt er een gevoel van geluk of euforie van. Deze stof komt ook vrij als mensen doorhebben dat ze iets leren. Bij gamen is dit niet anders. Je leert puzzels oplossen, je weet levels uit te spelen en vijanden te verslaan. Je presteert waardoor het lichaamseigen endorfine vrij komt. Je voelt je er goed bij. De ene jongeren is gevoeliger voor dan de andere. Zo is dat ook bij gokverslavingen, seksverslavingen, eetverslavingen en noem maar op. Net als bij de meeste verslavingen wordt je er steeds ongevoeliger voor en heb je er meer van nodig.
Een tweede belangrijke factor is de sociale factor in de meeste online spellen. Gamers spelen met of tegen elkaar online in 'clans', 'squads' of 'guilds' (afhankelijk van het spel type). Behalve dat zo'n groep gamers de game leuker maken en er ook een sociale wereld in de game ontstaat zorgt dit ook voor bepaalde druk. Bepaalde clans of guilds eisen van hun leden dat ze bijvoorbeeld minimaal 4 avonden in de week beschikbaar zijn voor online confrontaties. Omdat het menseigen is andere vrienden niet teleur te stellen blijven ze komen, ook al willen of kunnen ze eigenlijk niet. Maar dit heeft ook een andere kant. Het kan ook zo zijn dat gamers het sociale gebeuren buiten de game, zoals het praten op forums of MSN, veel leuker gaan vinden dan de game zelf. Ze willen eigenlijk met de game stoppen maar worden dan naar alle waarschijnlijkheid uit de clan of guild gezet. Dat willen ze juist niet waardoor ze tegen hun zin in blijven gamen.
Maar is de game producent nu verantwoordelijk voor deze nieuwe vorm van verslaving. Nee! Net zo min als Heineken verantwoordelijk is voor alcoholverslaving, net zo min dat Milka verantwoordelijk is voor eetverslavingen en net zo min als Holland Casino verantwoordelijk is voor gokverslavingen. Welke producent probeert niet zijn klanten aan zich te binden? Holland Casino introduceerde poker toernooien om aan de grote vraag hiernaar te voldoen. Proberen ze hierdoor mensen gokverslaafd te maken? Waar bij Heineken nog iets te zeggen is over het verslavende percentage Alcohol en bij Milka over de aanwezige hoeveelheid anandamide, een stof die verwant is aan THC, zit er in een poker toernooi of een videogame geen enkel verslavend middel. Dat jongeren er toch aan verslaafd raken heeft te maken met weinig discipline, zelfrespect en een gevoel van ongeluk in het leven. Net zoals vele andere jongeren verslaafd raken aan drugs of alcohol. Vaak gaat de gameverslaving zelfs samen met een drugs of alcohol verslaving. En natuurlijk moet er hulp komen voor de mensen die wel verslaafd zijn maar het is te eenvoudiger om de producent van een goed product de schuld te geven in plaats van als jongeren of ouder je eigen verantwoordelijkheid te nemen en de stekker eruit te trekken. Vroeger kreeg je gewoon een schop onder je hol van je vader als je langer dan twee uur binnen zat!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
