Response 1-JaysonV

During the documentary, /Hacker Wars/ submitted by Anonymous, I found this portion of the readings/viewings to be the most interesting based on the ethics and the values that are blurred by the media. Mainly in the sense of what is considered “hacking” to the government can be as small as going onto a certain public server and searching through it. With Weev, all he did was get onto a database that happened to have email accounts on it and exposed the flaw. As he said, he was arrested for something that even a 5 year old can do: counting. What we see as hackers is normally in a negative connotation due to the media. We see them as cyber terrorists that attempt to steal government secrets when in actuality they are trolls from places like 4chan just looking to mess with people. Ethics really is the big concern as hacking can yield to a large amount of power, but is normally used wisely by pointing out the flaws in the hacked server. In no way is this illegal, it is merely just reporting a bug in the system like what game developers wish those who purchase their game would do.

The whole thing on “what is new media” struck me as oddly plausible, though I disagree with the types of media that there are. Mainly because of this reasoning: if the vehicle is what the content is delivered through, then would that not make humans a vehicle as well? This to me alienates the interpersonal interaction. Sure it is person to person communications, but is it really the medium? If you talk to someone, what’s really happening? Magically the vibrations from vocal chords to ear travel from point A to point B? This is not the case. In this case, I would like to say that this interpersonal medium is auditory communication as the medium. Why? First off, sound if it is just one singular sound is clear, vivid and easily recognizable. Sound can also be changed by either party, allowing control of content from both ends. Though if the amount of noise and sound continues to grow, meaning multiple noises, it is much more difficult to pick a specific noise out of the crowd. Like was said, the radio station is not the media, nor is the radio a medium. This holds true to broadcasting thoughts from our brain , the station, to our mouths, the radio. 

To elaborate more on the interpersonal medium not being the medium here, we shall look at the example of letters and emails. it can be controlled to one on one, yes. It can become cluttered and be a visual cacophony, yes. Though, the content that is in an email or letter is not controlled by both parties, it is only controlled by one party. The only thing that is controlled by both parties is whether or not to read it and how much they want to read. The content is not readily controlled. What has been written is written and sent, and no one can change the content of letters or emails unless they were to hack into it. Therefore, the interpersonal medium should be the auditory medium as you can control the volume of which you speak and allow for that interpersonal interaction, and as you let the audience grow, it gets much more difficult to do so. 

Mass Medium, I believe is correct for that matter. There is slight overlap from auditory for this to happen, but not enough to bridge the gap. Speeches for example are auditory, but require for all the control of the content to be from one singular source. It does not even need to be a sound, the newspaper is a good form of a vehicle in the mass medium. You are not required to hear anything but you can still see that there is content. This, in my own opinion, puts letters and emails into the category of the new medium. As they both can bridge this gap between interpersonal (auditory) and mass media. Letters, it is possible to selectively send out one letter of the same content, or send out many of the same letter to multiple recipients with slight differences. The same can be said with Email. For this reason I do not believe there is an interpersonal medium, only Auditory Media.