Even though updates to my personal website have slowed to less than a crawl, today marks the 15th anniversary of it being online. In June 1998, a month after I left college, I put up the site as a way to keep in touch with friends (this was before Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, etc.). It evolved into more than that and led to numerous opportunities for which I'm super grateful.
Tonight, I will take a moment to reflect on the World Wide Web and how it's changed in the last 15 years (for better and for worse), and maybe I'll fire up Lynx just to make sure the site still looks good in a text-only browser, something I used to do regularly.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World
In a blog post last year (Pursuing new challenges), I mentioned that a book would be coming out, featuring 2 chapters that I wrote ("Strategies of Engagement: Discovering, Defining, and Describing Otaku Culture in the United States" and "Anime and Manga Fandom as Networked Culture"). After years of putting it together, Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World finally came out in late February.
If you're interested, it's available for purchase here:
(Kindle edition)
I met Mimi Ito (the primary editor of the book) several years ago, but I became aware of her work years before meeting her in person. At my very first 4S (Society for Social Studies of Science) conference in 2001, I saw her present on mobile phone culture in Japan, and at my second 4S conference in 2002, I gave my first academic presentation on otaku. Although Mimi wasn't there in 2002, her colleague presented her paper on Yu-Gi-Oh! otaku (which I attended). I met her co-editor, Daisuke Okabe, at FanimeCon in 2007. I haven't met Izumi Tsuji (another co-editor), but I hope to in the future. The cover art was done by the very talented ulises farinas, who I hope to meet at Comic-Con this year.
Mimi wrote about the book on her blog several months ago, and she gave a talk hosted by MIT's Comparative Media Studies program, which you can watch below:
(direct link)
If you don't have time to watch that, here's a comprehensive summary by Ethan Zuckerman: Mimi Ito on Otaku culture and cultural soft power
Later, in a follow-up post, I will revisit this talk to address some of the questions that were raised at the end.
Henry Jenkins conducted a three-part interview with the editors of the book, and my work was mentioned in that. See Otaku Culture in a Connected World: An Interview with Mizuko Ito, Daisuke Okabe, and Izumi Tsuji parts one, two, and three.
On a related note, Matt Alt interviewed fellow otaku scholar Patrick Galbraith to discuss Patrick's new book (Otaku Spaces)
and his thoughts on otaku culture in Japan. It's well worth a read (and I was happy to see my work mentioned there as well).
An Interview with Patrick W. Galbraith on Otaku Culture parts one, two, and three.
By the way, if you want to show off your own otaku space(s), feel free to contribute to this Flickr group I launched in 2009: Otaku Rooms
(Kindle edition)
I met Mimi Ito (the primary editor of the book) several years ago, but I became aware of her work years before meeting her in person. At my very first 4S (Society for Social Studies of Science) conference in 2001, I saw her present on mobile phone culture in Japan, and at my second 4S conference in 2002, I gave my first academic presentation on otaku. Although Mimi wasn't there in 2002, her colleague presented her paper on Yu-Gi-Oh! otaku (which I attended). I met her co-editor, Daisuke Okabe, at FanimeCon in 2007. I haven't met Izumi Tsuji (another co-editor), but I hope to in the future. The cover art was done by the very talented ulises farinas, who I hope to meet at Comic-Con this year.
Mimi wrote about the book on her blog several months ago, and she gave a talk hosted by MIT's Comparative Media Studies program, which you can watch below:
(direct link)
If you don't have time to watch that, here's a comprehensive summary by Ethan Zuckerman: Mimi Ito on Otaku culture and cultural soft power
Later, in a follow-up post, I will revisit this talk to address some of the questions that were raised at the end.
Henry Jenkins conducted a three-part interview with the editors of the book, and my work was mentioned in that. See Otaku Culture in a Connected World: An Interview with Mizuko Ito, Daisuke Okabe, and Izumi Tsuji parts one, two, and three.
On a related note, Matt Alt interviewed fellow otaku scholar Patrick Galbraith to discuss Patrick's new book (Otaku Spaces)
and his thoughts on otaku culture in Japan. It's well worth a read (and I was happy to see my work mentioned there as well).An Interview with Patrick W. Galbraith on Otaku Culture parts one, two, and three.
By the way, if you want to show off your own otaku space(s), feel free to contribute to this Flickr group I launched in 2009: Otaku Rooms
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Unintentional Lain cosplay?
Some of you may know that my wife, Carol (@raphaela235 on Twitter) is a style blogger. Since early last year, I've been helping Carol with her blog (In Pursuit of Pretty Things), and she's really turned into a real blogger. Sure, I blog for work, but in terms of keeping up a personal blog, you probably know I haven't posted much these past few years (not counting my Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ activity). In any case, I'm not here to make excuses. I simply have something to share that's related to my wife and serial experiments lain (the reason this blog is called lainspotting).
Last April, Carol posted an OOTD (outfit of the day) photo, something she routinely does on IPoPT. When I saw it, it seemed so familar. Here's the photo in question:
So, what do you think, lain fans? Does it remind you of anything?
Maybe it's a total stretch on my part, but here's what I immediately thought of:
It's just a coincidence, of course, but I thought it was funny and weird enough to share. Carol isn't huge fan of lain like I am, and she's never cosplayed as an anime character before. It just goes to show, Lain will show up in your life if you simply allow yourself to spot her.
Last April, Carol posted an OOTD (outfit of the day) photo, something she routinely does on IPoPT. When I saw it, it seemed so familar. Here's the photo in question:
 |
| Photo courtesy of Carol Kim |
So, what do you think, lain fans? Does it remind you of anything?
Maybe it's a total stretch on my part, but here's what I immediately thought of:
 |
| Serial Experiments Lain, ©1998 Triangle Staff / Pioneer LDC |
It's just a coincidence, of course, but I thought it was funny and weird enough to share. Carol isn't huge fan of lain like I am, and she's never cosplayed as an anime character before. It just goes to show, Lain will show up in your life if you simply allow yourself to spot her.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
On real names, opt-in networks, and the benefits of authentication
I was reading Danah Boyd's response to the Google+ real-name enforcement policy. I was going to put out a tweet or two, but it turned into something more than a couple of 140 character comments; you'll notice my statements getting longer and longer...
So here are my thoughts on the matter:
I agree people shouldn't be forced to use their real names online, but why should we insist that all social sites accommodate them?
How can Google's efforts to enforce real names on + be oppressive when they're providing a free service that people can use (or not use)?
Not every site needs to have the same policy, and even within a site, authenticated vs. non-authenticated users can be given different privileges.
Danah Boyd couches the issue of pseudonyms from the standpoint of user safety, but I believe her argument hinges on the assumption that people are forced to use Facebook and/or Google+ as opposed to some other competing social network. After all, there are plenty of places to express yourself online where your real name is not necessary; the market (and the internet) can accommodate many competing solutions.
Right now, it's not always obvious why real name enforcement is more than just huge software corporations asserting their will just because they can (e.g. "it's authoritarianism plain and simple, and authoritarianism is bad!"). After all, we just want to get online and have fun and socialize inconsequentially, right. It's not like we're getting money out of the bank, right?
For now, perhaps, but hopefully not forever. As our online interactions increasingly mean more in our daily lives (and carry over into the "real world"), and as what we do online becomes an important measure of our reputation and credibility (see Klout and Peerindex, or even one's eBay reputation score), then it makes sense that we need more places online where authentication, trust, and accountability are required. As someone who is online all day long, I want more (not fewer) places where my words and actions on the internet have an impact on the rest of my life.
Formalized systems of online reputation are just starting to take off. I think it's safe to assume that Google is interested in that space (especially given that PageRank is all about website reputation). For those of us who want safe places where we can congregate and communicate anonymously (or using pseudonyms) online without people stalking us, those exist and nothing is (currently) stopping anyone from making more.
I'm a fan of diversity and choices online, and being angry about a company's decision and choosing not to use their product is something I completely sympathize with, but that's not the same as saying a company's policy regarding a product--that is completely opt-in--is forcing people to be victimized. (For the record, I'm much more concerned about companies adopting initiatives that are opt-out only).
So here are my thoughts on the matter:
I agree people shouldn't be forced to use their real names online, but why should we insist that all social sites accommodate them?
How can Google's efforts to enforce real names on + be oppressive when they're providing a free service that people can use (or not use)?
Not every site needs to have the same policy, and even within a site, authenticated vs. non-authenticated users can be given different privileges.
Danah Boyd couches the issue of pseudonyms from the standpoint of user safety, but I believe her argument hinges on the assumption that people are forced to use Facebook and/or Google+ as opposed to some other competing social network. After all, there are plenty of places to express yourself online where your real name is not necessary; the market (and the internet) can accommodate many competing solutions.
Right now, it's not always obvious why real name enforcement is more than just huge software corporations asserting their will just because they can (e.g. "it's authoritarianism plain and simple, and authoritarianism is bad!"). After all, we just want to get online and have fun and socialize inconsequentially, right. It's not like we're getting money out of the bank, right?
For now, perhaps, but hopefully not forever. As our online interactions increasingly mean more in our daily lives (and carry over into the "real world"), and as what we do online becomes an important measure of our reputation and credibility (see Klout and Peerindex, or even one's eBay reputation score), then it makes sense that we need more places online where authentication, trust, and accountability are required. As someone who is online all day long, I want more (not fewer) places where my words and actions on the internet have an impact on the rest of my life.
Formalized systems of online reputation are just starting to take off. I think it's safe to assume that Google is interested in that space (especially given that PageRank is all about website reputation). For those of us who want safe places where we can congregate and communicate anonymously (or using pseudonyms) online without people stalking us, those exist and nothing is (currently) stopping anyone from making more.
I'm a fan of diversity and choices online, and being angry about a company's decision and choosing not to use their product is something I completely sympathize with, but that's not the same as saying a company's policy regarding a product--that is completely opt-in--is forcing people to be victimized. (For the record, I'm much more concerned about companies adopting initiatives that are opt-out only).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)