Social Networks are leading Revolutions

Social Networks have created a way to connect everyone online that reach to other places around the world. It is a way to find people that are likeminded as yourself to push the ability to help one another, coordinate in finding something or someone for that matter at a rapid pace. It depends upon the action and the repetitive motion of acting out online to be dragged into real life is when a line can be crossed when enough is called for.


Arab Springs with Asmaa Mahfouz’s video action was to call all to come take action that combined two youth movements, Hyde Park and ThinkMoldova.  They had continuously been protesting through social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. The result brought a large number of people, estimated to be between hundreds to thousands to protest in Chisinau’s central square, Piața Marii Adunări Naționale. The protest unexpectedly turned violent with people throwing stones at the parliament building which was set on fire.

When on the other hand people use the use of connectedness to help themselves with struggles within their lives. Several cases where people had been attacked, their possessions stolen and even are in need of money for medical situations turn to the internet for help. An example, Oksana Makar, a young woman who was gang raped, burned alive and left for dead had survived and named her attackers. It was not till further action was given when her mother videotaped her in large amount of pain which caught attention to in prison the men for life.

Greg, S 2014,  If You Doubt That Social Media Has Changed The World, Take A Look At Ukraine, Forbes, Journal Article, viewed 30 September

Mitew, T 2014a, The Social Network Revolutions: #mena #arabspring #maidan [part 1], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 30 September 2015,

Mitew, T 2014b, The Social Network Revolutions: #mena #arabspring #maidan [part 2], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 30 September 2015,

Mitew, T 2014c, The Social Network Revolutions: #mena #arabspring #maidan [part 3], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 30 September 2015,

Mitew, T 2014d, The Social Network Revolutions: #mena #arabspring #maidan [part 4], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 30 September 2015,

Mitew, T 2014e, The Social Network Revolutions: #mena #arabspring #maidan [part 5], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 30 September 2015,


Do you want an Apple or an Android?

If you go through the search bar and put down, ‘Apple vs Android’ there would be endless articles to read on why one is better than the other. There is never a clear decision to be made on which is preferred all over because it matters upon the individuals opinion.

On NSI Total IT Support I wanted to analyse the key positives and negatives to both these devices to narrow down to the software itself. There are two different models are open or closed.

An open model is a software in which allows Larger developer support, customizable, security and extended community support. This is targeted towards the Android software. The Android software itself gives you wide access to changing the font and format of how you want your phone to look while also creating a lot of barriers to keep you safe from viruses. Its extended community support can be further focused upon on either how much people contribute to the app store itself to connecting to further devices around your home. This statement further connects to larger developer support as other devices can than connect to your phone for greater usage. E.g. Samsung Watch.

A closed Model is something in which people classify to be simpler for its users as in same look and style without being able to customise. It is a unified experience in which is believed to gather more profit due to its narrowed down cut. This is targeted towards Apples software. A simple and easy software that is very popular and easy to use.

To conclude the war will never end between Android and Apple even for that of Apple and Windows because it depends upon the individual’s opinion. Would you prefer comfortability?  Or Simplistic? However both are quite the same with just different Models.


Chris. V, 2015, NSI Total IT Support, Connecticut IT Managed Services Blog, viewed 11 September 2015,

Can you not take my picture?

The public space in which we contain ourselves in can be either classified as private or public but that depends upon the individual’s perspectives of that along with the environment they are in. Photography itself can be viewed as one’s own way to show art while on the other side a way to show personal and personalised value of oneself. For this blog we were asked to go out and take in the meaning of photography and ethnography. This was also by going out and taking pictures of strangers, sounds and further observations of an individual’s ethical comfortability. However do we have the key ethics points in having permission, discretion, and value to care for others feelings over the matter?

Colberg (2013) says that while photographers may legally take photos of people in public spaces without permission or consent, they need to become aware of the ethics involved in this practice.

This is the street photography ethic that should contribute to both photographers and individual on their own as people can be reordered without being acknowledged that they were in the first place. Individuals need to acknowledge the value of the way they act in the public and abide by the rules given to them or even go beyond that aspect to learn what they are. This is what Colberg believes should be done.


Along the lines of the homework we were given I judged the way people acted within a formal environment such as my work at a Club. Individuals that participate in any regular club activities must abide various rules when they come in and exit. Yes this is a very much different way to approach the activity as individuals wanted to seek out strangers while I wanted to study their actions to how people would react and be valued in regards to either an alcoholic or a Gambler. These are two main killer habits that are seen throughout the club as individuals are drawn to flashing lights, sounds and the large supply of liquor.

An individual that involves in these habits cannot be pushed or talked out of their habits unless it’s of their own will. Now I contributed it towards that of people taking photos of them around their behaviours. It turned out when a phone or a camera out all would be brought out within this environment the individual would immediately walk away or move from the area so they were not within the picture. This was very interesting to see because these actions can be either that they did not wanted to be in a photo or they did not want others to see or be influenced from their habits. I valued this behaviour both within groups and on their own.

Drunk people

However I began to question, is this against the law that individuals who want to establish their own personal photo to be done and has others in the background, could that be them undermining them?

Colberg stated, “It might be perfectly legal to photograph someone in a public space, but something being legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical as well” (2013). This is a clear fact that individuals do not understand what they are doing within the public area when it comes to their own activities. But is this defamation, amusement or exploitation or a simple mistake?

Back to Street photography meaning, it is raw pieces capturing either an art form, human spirit or urban landscape that can further be published or designed upon in discussion or other art styles. Street Photographers have now changed from real qualified people to individuals with their mobile phones taking selfies in any area possible. This has created discomfort and paranoia through individuals who do not get permission or further value in the photos taken.

It concludes to my research and value that individuals need to understand the meaning of their spaces that they come into between others around them along with how they act upon them. Everyone may not like pictures that others post up but if you are an individual who without being acknowledged or asked to have their photo taken in the background to find that they have been published online can be a bit dramatic. We all must follow Colbergs statement as we need to acknowledge our actions within the area.

Let us go to the Movies!

Homework for this week’s blog in BCM240 was to plan and undertake a trip down to our local cinema. This had to focus on the key areas that are the three constraints that Torsten Hagerstrand identified as capability, coupling and authority.

Capability: Refers to the limiting of human movement due to physical or biological factors (Corbett 2011)

During my planning I found that I had to be cautious on what day and time a movie would be on due to my work and University Schedule. I would also classify that I had to be picky with what cinema I went to due to transport and parking.

Coupling: refers to the requirement of being in a certain place for a set amount of time, often in the company of others (Corbett 2011).

This restraint did not affect me because I went to the cinema with my friends and my boyfriend because I do not like to go alone to such social events. I was also very lucky to have found a gap of free time within my normal schedule that I did not have to worry or pick up my pace to finish the movie on time.

Authority:  refers to spaces that are controlled by people or institutions who can place limits on access to these spaces by individuals or groups (Corbett 2011).

This was the last restraint before we were given permission to access the movie. The first problem is that the movie was MA 15+, we are all above the ages of 18+ plus money wise we all new how much was needed. The last thing was for us to show our tickets in order to provide proof of our purchase before being fully aloud in. This was the boundaries that always must be followed in cinemas.

Now to the examination and observation of the movie theatre regarding about movie attendance in 5 to 10 years’ time.

The Movie I decided to view was ‘American Ultra’ which recently came out the day before because I wanted to judge how popular this movie would be the second day. The movie featured the two main actors Jesse EisenBerg as Mike Howell and Kristen Stewart as Phoebe. The time of the movie was at 9:30pm due to late thinking plus Shellharbour Cinema was only showing the movie compared to my closer cinemas to home.

I found one problem with my plan as I took off with my boyfriend and I, we needed to pick up people. This made us late and hard to plan all ourselves to be in one place as it seemed half were at the cinema and half were somewhere else entirely. We arrived and reunited with 10 minutes to spare this was our time to collect our food and tickets before the cinema opened.

Once arriving we saw a lot of people exciting the venue however the line seemed quite continuous with the amount of people coming in. We were only in line for 4 minutes and it took another few to order food. We sat in row E directly in the middle, comfy red seats and an average amount of people to attend a move however all scattered. The trailers began and discussion all ended.

From time to time people would bring out their phones or a flash of light would flicker, it seemed all too natural to bother people unless it made a sound. As a comedy and action movie it created a lot of audience noise that stirred everyone to make the same reaction. I believed it was a very silly yet hilarious action packed movie to bring your friends to.

My evaluation would conclude that by my experience people need to be committed and interested in the movie to want to go. More people are consumed in their media devices and online content that they have either forgotten the cinema experience completely or do not care to do the social activity. It creates way to social and connect but it always depends on the persons interests and hobbies. My view for the next 5 to 10 years is that the Cinema experience will most likely continue to live on even though the world is becoming more technology wise we would still like the experience. It all depends upon the movie connecting to peoples interests to gather people to come down which does happen from such movies as ‘Jurassic World’ or ‘Avengers.’

Bill Gates the Lord of all Microsoft Gardens

Public spaces and programs that are developed on the internet have become feudalised due to the use of these ‘Walled Gardens.’ These ‘Walled Gardens’ are programs such as Facebook or Youtube that trigger people’s interests due to past searchers or keywords. These spaces have been closed off so that information keeps being filtered into the programs to constantly grow and be made into further data stored online. The Feudal Lords, owners of such programs and devices that watch over the user’s actions and the meta data they create makes profit flow into the Owners devices/programs.


A classic example of this would be the Owner of Microsoft, Bill Gates. Bill Gates has centred all his devices including computers, consoles and phones to only be accessible to windows apps and programs while given a major advantage to further installations. An example of this is Windows 10 being free for user’s with windows software computers. The more user’s establish themselves online that begin to become the pet that generates the work while the Lords stand back and watch over.

Reference: Mitew, T 2014, The Feudalisation of the Internet [part 1], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 3 September 2015,

Mitew, T 2014, The Feudalisation of the Internet [part 2], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 3 September 2015,

Mitew, T 2014, The Feudalisation of the Internet [part 3], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 3 September 2015,–tHw8To&list=PLiPp71qLKusXOU1bKxHVappCbRNN3-J-j&index=21

Mitew, T 2014, The Feudalisation of the Internet [part 4], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 3 September 2015,

Mitew, T 2014, The Feudalisation of the Internet [part 5], Online Video, YouTube, viewed 3 September 2015,