By Martin Quigley
May 4th, 2010
I would like to begin this paper by voicing my thoughts of the assignment. Never before have I had the opportunity to express my opinion on what my grade should be, let alone have my opinion be taken into consideration. I’m appreciative of the opportunity, and I think it is an interesting move. The “interesting moves” that you’ve implemented during the course of the year were one of the factors that made me really enjoy Digital Networks. From mandatory blogging to numerous class projects and discussions, the way you ran class ended up making the learning experience better. Initially, the unorthodox teaching style (presentations due for the first class, blog posts, no in-class exams) caught me off guard. The contents of your syllabus, combined with your seemingly “no mercy” persona during the first class made me extremely nervous about taking this course. I was seriously considering dropping the class. Obviously I did not, a decision that I’m extremely glad I made. Digital Networks ended up being my favorite class this semester. A combination of engaging course material, an interesting topic and a knowledgeable professor pushed me to work harder in this class than I have in any class during my college career.
There were several themes during the course of the semester that really resonated with me. Jaron Lanier’s criticisms of technology fetishism were astute and worked well in contextualizing the rest of the semester. I found Lanier’s arguments concerning the dehumanizing aspects of technology a stunning contrast to previous opinions of technology I had been exposed to. His critiques of “the cloud” and anonymity were both persuasive and articulate. This tied into the second theme that interested me: the loss of individual autonomy. Almost every author that we read this year had an interesting take on the causes and effects of this loss. I began to feel apprehensive about this loss, even more so after we studied Movements.org and Jared Cohen. Now, at the conclusion of the semester, I have found that the synthesis of information presented to me in class has made me far more knowledgeable about online networks, both in their human and logistical behavior. My view of technology has changed, and although I am by no means a luddite, enrollment in Digital Networks has made me analyze the use of technology in both my personal life and greater society.
You Are Not a Gadget by Jaron Lanier was an excellent introduction to the class. The criticisms presented in the book were more than adequate at familiarizing us with the rhetoric and arguments against technological fetishism. In the beginning of his book, Lanier talks about the concept of a “lock in”. For programmers, this is when a certain code or algorithm becomes so embedded into a program that it is irreplaceable. This can prove problematic when a new algorithm is discovered that can work more efficiently. Lanier uses this allegory to present his assertion: humanity is currently in the process of “locking in”. Even now, it is almost impossible to envision a world in which the computer is non-existent. However, it is not the existence of computers and the internet that makes Lanier nervous; it is our use (or misuse) of the services that they provide us.[1] While Lanier had many different criticisms of modern technophile culture, the one that interested me the most was his denunciation of the authority of “the cloud”. “The cloud” is a term for the aggregate data of the internet, individual bits uploaded by individual users to become something far greater. The shining manifestation of the cloud online is Wikipedia. Full of information composed by individual users, Wikipedia is arguably the most-used encyclopedia in the world. While the benefits of Wikipedia are many (ease of use, convenience, accessibility), to Lanier its celebration is foolish. While cybernetic totalists may argue that the using collective knowledge is far more accurate than any individual could produce, Lanier asserts the opposite. Technophiles, he says, ignore the fact that individuals are the ones who upload the information, and that it doesn’t just manifest itself on the site.[2] While the knowledge on Wikipedia may be accurate, it is foolish to laud it as a marvel of human achievement, or to even propose that it is far greater than humanity itself. Doing this is to contravene the work of the individuals who contributed to it. To Lanier the work of amateurs, no matter how many, will never compare to that of experts. For example, Lanier brings up the example of Einstein versus a team of amateur physicists. Who would achieve greater success? Obviously Einstein: when it comes to innovation and advancement in society, quality always comes before quantity.[3]
Another criticism that Lanier has is that proponents of cloud consciousness online often forget the negative implications that it for individuals. Two examples that Lanier brings up is the rapid devaluation of art and cyber bullying/trolling. Through the rampant practice of file sharing, music has become almost worthless. File sharing is a function of the online community-the cloud both permits and exacerbates its practice. However, by devaluing art, file sharers are inevitably killing it. If there is no incentive for releasing music, then it will eventually no longer be broadcast to the public. Cyber bullying is a phenomenon related to the worst facet of the cloud (according to Lanier): anonymity. Because people have ways of hiding their identity online, they are not held accountable for the things they say. This has lead to the persecution of individuals on the internet, sometimes at the hands of the very cloud that cybernetic totalists applaud. Internet supporters often forget that the cloud is capable of destruction just as much, or even more than creation.[4]
It is interesting to go back to my first blog post on Lanier and to read my analysis of his book. It’s obvious that I only had only a cursory understanding of what he was trying to say. However, as the year progressed, I began to comprehend his argument, and in turn formulate my own. I believe that Lanier is totally correct in his criticisms of the cloud. It’s obvious that the cloud is capable of being both constructive and destructive. Wikipedia is a shining example of the productive elements of the cloud. Through collective knowledge, the cloud has created a lexicon of all cultural, society and historical data of the world. This is no small feat, and I believe Lanier would agree. The less palatable aspects of the cloud include such behavior as file sharing and mass online bullying. While the constructive and destructive details of the cloud may seem very disparate, they are united by one of its functions: the abandonment of the individual self. Participation in an online community often includes the creation of an online “avatar”, a representation of our tangible self. However, we are not required to use our real information, so for all intents and purposes, we are anonymous. This results in the devaluation of the self, as Lanier said. Whether it is an anonymous contribution to an online encyclopedia or a disparaging remark made to another person, in many cases online activity is faceless. This has significant repercussions not only for online behavior, but also for how the collective “we” is seen by the administrators of the networks in which we operate.
Due in part to the perception of internet users as a “hive” or “cloud”, there has been a surreptitious decline in the lack of individual autonomy on the web. This slow loss of autonomy was one of my main interests this semester. It’s an issue that almost every author assigned to us discussed in his or her book, if only a brief mention. Lanier contextualizes his concern with the loss of individual autonomy via the discussion of “cloud lords”. The cloud lords are administrators of online networks that have the potential to wield power or gain money off of the contributions of the cloud. For example, in You Are Not A Gadget, Lanier discusses how on YouTube, money is made for the company by advertisements placed on user-uploaded videos. These advertisements are sources of revenue and profit for YouTube, but for the individual who uploaded the original video, no money is seen.[5] To Lanier, this is distressing because like Wikipedia, it is a practice that privileges the hive and cloud lords while marginalizing individual contribution. In Network Culture, Tiziana Terranova also discusses the manipulation of individuals in order to achieve a bigger goal. However, she contextualizes the loss of autonomy through a criticism of open source software development and social networks. According to Terranova, open-source development is nothing short of time-robbery. To her, free software development, while sometimes proving beneficial to the consumer, ultimately helps to empower the capitalists that enable its use.[6] Terranova also references the free labor inherent in the use of social networks or instant messaging services, however she does not delve as deep as other authors that we read.
It wasn’t until we read and discussed Blog Theory that I truly began to understand how dangerous and insidious autonomy loss was. In the book, you lay out the process very well. As I understood it, a loss of autonomy is attributed to the following:
· The creation of “whatever beings” who have no ethos, and as a result are largely apathetic when it comes to any sort of political or social issues. They lack a way in which to articulately communicate with the outside world. All communication is via mutually understood digital “spectacles”. Whatever beings are individuals who are complacent occupying their digital realms.
· The increasing prevalence of “affective networks”, and their tendency to trap users. Like Facebook, Youtube and various blogging websites, affective networks are networks that rely on user-uploaded data in order to function. Users are expected to upload data, and in return they get the privilege of viewing other’s data. Due to the constant input of data (pictures, comments, videos etc.), affective networks can “trap” users. Constant user uploads ensure that there is an inexhaustible supply of media to devour. As a result of this data deluge, users of these networks have developed remarkably short attention spans. Users are not committed to any particular fragment of knowledge. Because of this, Dean (that’s you!) says, the internet is increasingly filled with “noise” (static that gets in the way of meaningful information). As a result society is becoming less receptive to meaningful information.[7]
Blog Theory brings up the worry that society is becoming increasingly passive and apathetic, whilst becoming more receptive to repeated “noise”. Communicative capitalists, who benefit from the exploitation of communication, harness our information in order to make market decisions based on it. In this sense, using “noise” (ie. advertisements), communicative capitalists are telling consumers what they desire. The state too is using this receptiveness to further it’s own ends. In Blog Theory, you cite data asserting that George W. Bush and his publicists used knowledge of “spam” to help rally support for the controversial Iraq war. Obviously the ploy worked, and the nation entered into yet another conflict.
Blog Theory asserts that both the state and communicative capitalists are actively involved in the manufacture of a “false subjectivity”. By convincing individuals what is right or wrong, cool or lame, good or bad, both entities have the ability to deprive the people of their autonomy. With the rise of “whatever beings” and a preoccupation with the rapid digestion of data, we are making ourselves hyper-responsive to misleading messages.
The loss of individual autonomy was, to me, the most troubling theme that we covered over the course of the semester. I honestly feel that through the rapid consumption of media, the youth as a generation are lobotomizing ourselves. Disconnect from the physical world has rendered us largely apathetic. A combination of nihilism and solipsism, the philosophy of the “whatever being” is truly troubling. In Blog Theory, you discussed how this apathy is rendering us vulnerable to manipulation by the state. While this is a strong, believable assertion, I thought it was a theoretical issue, not one that could happen, or was already happening. However, when we discussed the website movements.org I was proved wrong.
Movements.org is a jarring empirical example of state and capitalist manipulation of the youth. The website’s official goal is to serve as a forum over which to speak and become involved with youth activism. There are multiple links, most sending the user to the pages of established movements. Other links direct you to instructions on how to effectively participate in a movement using new technology. For example, how to start a successful group on Facebook or how to use your Android phone to promote activism. While the intentions of the site seem honorable at first glance, further study reveals that there may be a different, less righteous motivation.
Jared Cohen, founder of movements.org, is a very interesting man. A graduate of Stanford and Oxford, Cohen studied International Relations. At the young age of 24, he was appointed to the State Department’s policy-planning committee. Cohen’s specialty was in counter-terrorism and de-radicalization using technology in 3rd world countries. In particular, Cohen focused on the use of social media to facilitate change.[8] Cohen gained international attention when it was revealed that he pressured Twitter to remain accessible during the 2009 post-election protests in Iran, a move that was publically condemned by the White House. However, it is his actions in the year prior, 2008, that trouble me.
2008 marked the first inaugural “Alliance for Youth movements”, the brainchild of the State Department, Google, Howcast Media, Columbia University and others media companies. The conference brought together various corporations, government representatives and activists in order to discuss methods to manipulate new media in order to promote activism. The conference was successful, and was convened again in both 2009 and 2010. In 2010, the intention to create Movements.org was announced, and in a few months it was up and running.[9]
In late 2010, Cohen left the state department and joined Google as head of their think tank, “Google Ideas”. Despite the change in employer, Cohen’s job description is for all intents and purposes, the same. Cohen’s job with Google asks him to “dream up and try out ideas that address the challenges of counter-terrorism, counter-radicalism and nonproliferation, as well as innovations for development and citizen empowerment”.[10]
As noble as the intentions of Cohen/Google/The Alliance of Youth Movements seem, I’m extremely skeptical of their intentions. As you mentioned in Blog Theory, the state and capitalists have the potential to manipulate the population using new media. Separately, these two entities offer a significant threat to autonomy, if Dean’s assertion is to believe. However, what are the implications if corporations and the state fuse their interests to manipulate the population? The answers to that question are the reason why Jared Cohen’s various projects make me anxious. The Alliance of Youth movements is a visible meeting of the public and private sector, fusing in order to control not only the American people, but also reinforce American hegemony abroad. The state’s promotion of youth activism is puzzling to me. Wouldn’t the government seek to quiet domestic activism? Youth empowerment would surely result in a sea change in government. However, nevertheless the government got involved with Movements.org. Corporate involvement is, in my mind, a bit simpler to understand. Many of the sponsors of AYT (Google, Facebook, MTV) are catered towards a young demographic, making their interest sort of obvious. Sponsoring youth activism would help to solidify their place in the market. However, as I mentioned before, the fusion of the state and corporations puts forward the idea that the interests of the two must be fused. Therefore it is my concluding assertion that the Government and certain large media companies are actively engaged in a partnership to maintain American hegemony through de-radicalization and the exportation of culture, and that American youth autonomy has already been compromised.
The partnership of Google and the government is almost jarringly transparent. In the article “The Googlization of Everything”, author Siva Vaidhyanathan states that President Obama has clear ties to Google. He has visited the facility on more than one occasion, and used YouTube as the primary medium on which to release campaign videos. This, partnered with Google’s refusal to take down subversive videos during the Iran elections of 2009 (of which Cohen was a part), leads me to believe that Google is actively involved with the US government[11]. In our final exam, you asked us to articulate whether or not we believed Google was a regulatory agency. I argued yes. It appears that the Government has defaulted regulatory duties to Google. While some call this a “public failure”, I believe that allowing Google to reign over the internet was a calculated decision made by the government. My primary evidence for my belief is Jared Cohen’s seamless move from the State Department to Google. As I mentioned before, his job description is basically the same. Although this in itself is not evidence of cooperation, Cohen’s explanation for his move is.
The big thing is the resources and the capabilities. There are not a couple hundred [computer] engineers in the State Department that can build things; that's just not what government does. You don't necessarily have some of the financial resources to put behind these things. It's really hard to bring talented young people in; there are not a lot mechanisms to do it. [And] on some topics, it's very sensitive for government to be the one doing this.[12]
For the majority of his statement, Cohen attributes his move to governmental deficiency, and like many others, to “public failure”. However, note his last sentence. Cohen believes that at his new job, actions too “sensitive” for government can be completed. This statement, combined with the fact that Cohen’s job at Google was created specifically for him, leads me to believe that there was communication between the two entities, and that under Google, Cohen will continue the state department’s work in de-radicalization.
There have been many recent successes in the move for de-radicalization. The most cited example of this is the success of the overthrow in Egypt. Facilitated by the use of social media, the Egyptian revolution was the first successful example of a Cohen-esque overthrow. Communication was primarily through social networking sites and text messaging. Twitter and Facebook, like in Iran, played a large part in enabling dissent. While the overthrow was no small undertaking, to me the victory was not as sanguine as the news made it out to be. Keeping AYM in mind, there was a reason that Facebook, Twitter (and inadvertently the state department) got involved. The use of American social media no doubt means that users are not “anti-American” by any means. Thus, the victory of social media users not only represents the overthrow of a violent dictator, but also the abolition of institutional anti-Americanism. Thus, Egypt has been successfully “de-radicalized” in the eyes of the State Department. Egypt has also opened itself to subtle American influence, via the influx of American culture over social media outlets. The welcoming of American social media will no doubt result in continued importation of American culture and goods, helping to solidify the influence of the United States. In the face of economic decline, the expansion of American cultural hegemony becomes even more important. Deep down, I feel that is what the Alliance for Youth Movements and Movements.org is really about, exporting American culture, and making up for impending economic decline with cultural dominance.
The ramifications of corporate/state fusion are extremely troubling to me. In particular, state involvement makes me question my own generation’s autonomy. The government, if participation in Movements.org and AYT is any indicator, appears to be in full support of youth activism and empowerment. However, this runs contrary to its interests. Widespread youth activism and politicization would result in a dramatically different political atmosphere in the United States. The legitimacy of the very state may be called into question. However, the state still supports activism through participation with Jared Cohen’s various projects. This leads me to believe that the State does not perceive the American youth to be a threat to its authority. To put it your own words, American youths are all “whatever beings”, without an ethos or interest in matters greater than themselves. Through the liberal use of the internet and immersion in affective networks, the youth of the United States are first success story in the global process of de-radicalization. Now, a coalition of governmental and corporate beings wishes to do the same to foreign youth, under the façade of “empowerment and activism”.
It would seem that the loss of autonomy and the rise of governmental/corporate authority are a near-irreversible process. I will admit that the evidence showcasing the power of the two is extremely intimidating. However, I truly believe that with responsible use of the internet, as a generation, we can notice and reverse governmental mind-control. Intrinsically, the internet is a medium for communication, not a medium for control. By communicating outside of mainstream networked media (Facebook, Twitter), we can successfully promote our ideals and thoughts without empowering the powers at be. I like to call this process “re-radicalization”. By changing the way that internet is used, and operating outside of affective networks, the “whatever” generation can politicize themselves and vanquish those who would seek to imprison us. To quote Terminator II, “There is no fate but what you make”.
The Morning After
As a preface to my real self-assessment, I would like to thank you for being so passionate about the course material. I believe that it rubbed off on the class, and made the learning environment much more enjoyable. Perhaps it was the subject material, but over the course of the semester I pushed myself harder in this class than any other thus far in my collegiate career. On top of the assigned reading, I often looked for news stories that augmented my understanding of our discussions in class. While blogging, I tried my best to analyze, and not summarize our readings. While some of the readings may have been hard to decipher (cough...Terranova), class discussion always helped in my comprehension of the main topics and themes.
My interest in the class also helped others; for both of the exams I was approached by my classmates for clarification. Although I do not proclaim that I always knew the right answer, I tried my best to help my friends and classmates out.
I entitled this essay “What Has Been Seen Cannot Be Unseen”, using the LOLcat internet meme. The caption in the picture summarizes my final feelings about the class very well. Over the course of this semester I have been made aware of knowledge that has had a profound effect on the way I view technology. In particular, the movements.org/AYM class discussion, regardless of how brief it was, really unnerved me. Although we did not discuss it that much in class, I was moved to do my own research (usually using links you shared over the blog) about the issues that Jared Cohen’s projects present. My above essay was meant to be a summation of my feelings, proof that I was interested enough in the class to synthesize the information to form a coherent final thought.
In closing, I would just like to reiterate the effect that enrollment in this class has had on me. Prior to this class, I was a Media and Society major with aspirations of going into marketing. However, after learning about how insidious and destructive advertising can be, I’ve had second thoughts. Now, I have no plans for my future career, however I’ve switched my minor to Political Science, so I hope to some way or another continue my study of technology and it’s political social implications. However, the alteration of my career path, and the existential meltdown I had as a result of your class caused me severe psychological harm. Therefore, as means compensation, I am asking for ___ in the class.
[1] Lanier, Jaron. You Are Not A Gadget. New York: Knopf, 2010 p.13-14
[2] Lanier, p.141-147
[3] Lanier, p. 144
[4] Lanier, p.15-16, 67-68
[5] Lanier, p. 85-86
[6] Terranova, T. (2004). Network Culture. New York, NY: Pluto Press. p.91-94
[7] Dean, J. (2010) Blog Theory. Malden, MA: Polity Press p.83-93
[8] US State Department. Accessed May 5, 2011. http://www.state.gov/s/p/115458.htm.
[9] Rowan, David. "AYM Summit." Wired. Accessed May 5, 2011. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-03/10/meet-the-worlds-youth-activists.
[10] Boyd, E.B. "Google Grabs State Dept. Star Jared Cohen For Foreign Policy Think/Do Tank." FastTrack. Accessed May 5, 2011. http://www.fastcompany.com/1695515/google-ideas-jared-cohen.
[11] Vaidhyanathan, Siva. "The Googlization of Everything." http://www.ucpress.edu/excerpt.php?isbn=9780520258822#readchapter1.
[12] Boyd, E.B. “Google Grabs State Dept. Star Jared Cohen For Foreign Policy Think/Do Tank."
FINAL EXAM
1. In The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric Raymond contrasts the efficiency and success of enclosed software development and open-source software development. Through this contrast, he makes it clear that he believes that open-source software engineering is better than enclosed development. Some of his points are that in open-source development, the reasons for development are passion and a genuine interest in the project on which the developers are working. This is not true of enclosed programming, where programmers are assigned specific duties. Secondly, programmers in open-source movements rarely begin projects that they do not have the means to accomplish due to the nature of programmer culture. Finally, he argues that the “best hacks come from harnessing the power of the entire community”. Through his arguments, Raymond advocates the power of open-source software.
I do not believe that Raymond’s argument is consistent with his title. The title “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” implies that the author will seriously consider the pros and cons of each development style, analyzing and contrasting the two. However Raymond does no such thing. Instead, he just lauds the power of open-source development while ignoring the benefits of enclosed development.
(The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric Raymond)
2. Siva Vaidhyanathan’s assertion that Google has capitalized on public failure means, bluntly, that the foundational and design flaws in public services and regulation have allowed Google to hold a tremendous amount of power over the internet. Because of the infectivity of the government in regulating the internet and its data flow, Google has become the arguably the biggest power in the digital realm. Its primary authority comes from Google’s controlling of the accessibility of information. Because it is the number one search engine, Google can determine what exactly internet browsers can see. Although Google’s official policy is “don’t be evil”, the possibility of abuse makes Google’s ethos prone to skepticism.
The issue of Google is almost central to the regulation debate of the internet. Proponents of net regulation often target Google, because of its sheer size and volume of information. However, it is the size of Google that makes it almost un-regulatable. As stated in The Googlization of Everything, there are many different facets to the company “Google”. For some of these aspects, regulation is a tangible and almost acceptable concept. For example, the issue of YouTube and the hosting of copyrighted content. Viacom has been adamant about YouTube (owned by Google) taking down videos that contain copywrited content. Governments in more authoritarian countries have regulated other facets of Google, like the very search function. However, in the United States, Google has gone largely without regulation. In fact, Google seems to have a working relationship with the government. President Obama has voiced his cooperation with the company, hosting his videos first on YouTube.
The collaboration of the government and Google almost makes one think that Google should be regarded as its own type of agency. It would seem that Google is the regulatory authority on the internet; after all, it does decide which content is viewed via the search function. Google even holds sway with service providers. When the net neutrality debate was going on, it could be argued that Google was the driving force behind proponents of net neutrality. Google defended the traditional model of the internet against companies that wanted to implement “pay for your bandwidth” policies. In both of these cases, it could be argued that Google is a powerful regulatory agency of the internet.
(The Googlization of Everything, Siva Vaidhyanathan)
3. Social media is driven by a number of different factors. Throughout the year, the authors that we have read would argue different points, but it is a combination of them all that makes social media so successful. First, the narcissistic tendencies of the users drive social media. People are constantly looking for affirmation in their own looks, popularity, comedic abilities etc. Social media makes the broadcasting of ones self much easier and simpler by concentrating almost all aspects of existence in one medium. Secondly, social media allows users to immerse themselves into their social life at all times. There is not a single moment when solitary internet browsers can be disconnected from the outside world. This is appealing to some people. Social media is often tailored to the exact desires and interests of the users. In networks such as facebook, only relevant ads are shown, only your friends are publicized on your news feed, and only people who you know can write on your wall. Therefore social media allows users to focus on the things that they deem important, and not “noise” from the outside world.
(The Viral Me, Devin Friedman. Blog Theory, J. Dean, p. 113-119)
4. Continued existence of the eighties “hacker culture” is one of the fundamental reasons that Wikileaks has been so successful in unveiling confidential documents. The “hacker culture” extolled the virtue of using technology against “the man” in order to better the lives of the governed. The idealist, techno-utopian mindset has also carried through into Wikileaks. Wikileaks and hackers also tend to portray themselves in the same way; as masked, vigilante soldiers that do good for the sake of doing good. Both movements use the skill available to them (hacking), in order to bring down the powers that they see as being dangerous. However, as mentioned in the Eurozine article “Twelve Theses on Wikileaks”, there is a darker side to this ideology. Hackers often tend to have elitist mindsets concerning their efforts, and this has definitely bled through into Wikileaks. Julian Assange is often portrayed as an arrogant, idealistic, polarized individual.
Wikileaks is different from traditional journalism in the sense that it does not try to operate under the façade of journalistic integrity. Wikileaks, although they do edit the overviews of documents and check them to ensure validity, is incapable of putting a spin on the documents they release. Hard information is released, not an interpretation. This differentiates it from traditional media, which is required to expound information in order to get a story. Wikileaks leaves the comprehension of the leaks up to the viewers. The benefit of this mentality is that it allow for little to no judgment on the part of the releasing agency. The data released is pure information. However, the drawbacks of this practice is that it makes the comprehension of the data much more difficult for an average user. Whereas it is simple to listen to a news story and digest the statistics, foraging through Wikileaks for information is a much more arduous process. Also, the ability of Wikileaks to produce such spectacles angers and annoys competing news agencies, making it a target of the mainstream media.
(Twelves Theses on Wikileaks; Contain This! Eurozine)
5. Mark Andrejevic’s “digital enclosure” is the surrender of our privacy in exchange for the use of a service. The people who own the infrastructure for the use of technology can set the terms of usage. Cell phone companies can track your calls, position, ringtones downloaded as well as charge you a fee, simply because they own the cell phone towers and the data network that permits usage. Social networks can mine your data and sell it to advertisers because after all, you put it on their website. This enclosure is happening in all forms of information technologies, especially those that have interactive capabilities.
(Mark Andrejevic, iSpy. Pages 2-3)
6. Interactivity does not entail democratization. Mark Andrejevic makes this point very clear in his book iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. In fact, Andrejevic argues the opposite; interactivity reinforces the power of individual companies by eliminating the privacy of users. Through digital enclosure, companies set terms of use that makes uploaded content the property of the company. Although the information uploaded on a network (ie Facebook) may be the content of a users personal life, the information becomes the property of the network as soon as it is put on the site. The network can do what it wants with the information. Often, these networks hoard the data until they have enough for marketing agencies to analyze. It is at this point that data can be sold for a premium.
Now this practice would not seem to limit democratization, but further analysis proves otherwise. After the companies amass data, they make it their personal property, denying it to the public. The information is purely for use by marketing agencies, consumer companies and sometimes the government. By doing this, interactive networks withhold information from the public for their own personal gain. By withholding information about the people from the people, interactive networks are limiting democratization.
Another point that Andrejevic makes is that interactive networks are often lauded as being the bringers of great change amongst the downtrodden people. By allowing ideas to spread and information to be shared, these networks will empower the users against the state. However, as Andrejevic points out, interactive networks promote a solipsistic viewpoint. The networks make the user seem as if themselves (and the immediate network that he/she socializes with) are the only people on the entirety of the planet. Interaction with the population as a whole is extremely limited, and as a result the ability to hear the viewpoints and ideas of the aggregate is limited.
Andrejevic’s main point concerning interactivity is the fact that the “participation” on the part of the user/consumer is unintended. Watching a television show or inputting your favorite artist on Facebook is not meant to empower the owners of the medium with any sort of information. Participation in democracy, however, does empower the individual. An individual vote is the physical manifestation of the will of the individual. The purpose of participation in a vote is very clear, unlike participation in the interactivity of a network.
Andrejevic’s argument applies very well to the organization “Movements”. Movements.org relies on the façade that the use of interactive networks can produce positive change in the tangible world. Through the harnessing of Facebook and other social media, users can make a change with minimal effort. However, in an essay written by one of the founders of Movement.org, detailed plans for the de-radicalization of youth are outlined. The plan is basically to lobotomize youth by making them depended on interactive networks and bringing them consumer goods. By the use of interactive networks, the plan is to limit the ideas going around in the public sector. How would Andrejevic feel about that?
(Adrejevic, p. 4-11, 201-206, Google’s Revolution Factory )
7. Franco Berardi sees an intricate relationship between the idea “refusal of work” and the rise of technology. Refusal of work refers to the mindset that workers had in the 70s. Basically, if you did not feel like going to work one day, you had that option. Regulation of industry and the largely manual/non-dependent on technology jobs available allowed laborers to have specific hours and flexibility of schedule. However, the backlash of this mindset was severe. Deregulation of industry and globalization, combined with the rise of technology forced workers to adopt a different mindset. Instead of being timed laborers with specific goals and responsibilities, employees were required to be dynamic and available to their employers at all hours. Technology in particular had a drastic effect on the laborer. With the advent of globalization, many jobs that did not require a high level of education were exported to foreign countries. What domestic jobs remained were focused on information technologies, forcing workers to adapt. Berardi calls these types of jobs “cognitive labor”. These jobs did not required that the laborer be available and working at all hours of the day. With the rise of new technologies, like cell phones and smart phones that allow emails to be read on your mobile device, employers have even more control over employees. Now, laborers are paid for the timely and punctual delivery of assigned tasks, not the labor that occurs between the hours of 9AM to 5PM. The refusal of work, combined with the rise in technologies has resulted in the virtual enslavement of the educated working professional.
(Precarious Rhapsody, p. 72-82)
8. According to Franco Berardi, semio-capitalism has increased rates of mental instability for two reasons. Firstly, the rates of attention disorders have increased because of the sheer volume of information available to people today. Due to the rise of the internet, information has because so easy to access that it has almost resulted in an overload of white noise. In order to comprehend the information, our minds have been altered in able to analyze the information faster. However, in this process, we lose some of the meaning of the information, and our comprehension has decreased. Thus, the rise in ADHD.
Panic orders and depression are caused by a different phenomenon. As mentioned earlier in his book, Berardi believes that the average non-physical laborer is now tethered to their job via communicative devices and in increase in the entrepreneurial ethos. With both unemployment and the cost of living rising, employers have the upper hand over their employees. Workers are held to a higher standard than is physically or mentally capable for some, and as a result an increase in the rates of panic disorders and depression. To the average worker, it is better to be medicated and work at a super-human level than to fall behind the competition because of “mental deficiencies”.
(Precarious Rhapsody p.99-102, 109-120)
9. According to Nicholas Carr, internet use is having a measurable effect on the human mind. Studies have shown that the brain adapts to outside stimuli, rerouting the neural connections where they are best used. A 1970 study showed that retractile instincts in sea slugs, a neurological behavior, can be changed if the correct stimuli is applied. After multiple physical stimuli of the gills, the slug began to stop twitching. Further examination showed that the slug’s brain had changed, causing it to stop retracting when touched. This change of neurological behavior is the foundational belief behind the theory of “brain plasticity”. This is the thought that the human brain is malleable, and can change according to the material.
Carr’s assertion is that due to the massive deluge of information on the internet, the human brain is changing in a way that could be considered detrimental. To Carr, the plethora of visual, aural and intellectual stimuli on the internet is causing the human mind to think faster. However, we are not thinking about the information as much. In exchange for our enhanced speed, we are losing out on the ability to comprehend and remember information. Instead of contemplating and thinking about specific ideas or concepts for an extended period of time, we “juggle” them, not thinking about them for that long. To Carr, the implications of this development are vast. Memory has been affected. When the collective human history is concentrated in one location, there isn’t really a reason to retain it. The internet acts as an “external hard drive” for the information that humanity previously had to retain. This is problematic because the loss of the memory function, quite simply, makes the brain work worse. Memories are not consolidated (turned into “long-term” memories), and as a result are only recalled in the “short term”. Another problem that Carr sees is the loss of empathy that can accompany a “rapid-fire” way of thinking. Because we do not think about the greater context and meaning of ideas, we cannot understand them past a cursory look. Thus, we do not understand the troubles of others, resulting in a loss of empathy.
I’m not sure if I believe all aspects of Carr’s argument. While I do not deny the fact that the human brain can adapt to outside stimuli, I think Carr is alarmist when discussing the repercussions of the rerouting of the human brain. Globalization due to technology has significantly lessened the size of a previously wide world. As a result, we are constantly faced with the challenges of other people. In a world before the internet, we were only presented with the challenges of the people directly around us. Other people’s troubles may have been broadcast over the radio or printed in a newspaper, but they really did not have that large of an effect on us, emotionally or otherwise. However, with the rise in globalization and a general ease in communication that we see in modern times, humans have become much more susceptible to information. As such, it would definitely appear that empathy has decreased. However, I would argue that the amount of empathy inherent in humanity has remained the same, it is only the context of the empathy that has changed.
(The Shallows, Nicholas Carr. P 25-27, 191-195, 137-148)
10. Google directly benefits from users clicking on many links that it shares. Advertisers looking to harness the power of Google in order to promote their product sponsor these links, and the more times that these links are clicked, the more money an advertiser has to pay. The efficiency of Google’s ad system (where ad space is auctioned and only effective ads make it to the top) has resulted in an efficiency of ad placement that no other company has ever seen. Due to this efficiency, Google has been met with extremely high profits, and the luxury of being one of the few large companies not effected by the current recession. For the individual internet users, there are implications of this ad placement strategy. Google’s efficiency has resulted in far more relevant advertisements. As previously mentioned, only strong ads get placed on the main search page of Google. As a result, the most convincing ads are placed where the largest volume of people can see them. Like Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”, Google’s advertising strategy ensures that the public only views the strongest and most convincing ads.
It makes sense to use the notion of “efficiency” when discussing the human thought process. Throughout the semester, we have been studying the effects of technology use on the human psyche. In almost every book where it is discussed, authors have stated that the human mind has the ability to adapt to its situational surroundings. Nicholas Carr argues that the human brain is transforming to process data faster (albeit with less delicacy). Studies have shown that the human brain acts differently when an individual uses the internet. This evidences the notion of human efficiency of though. Our brains have the capability to ensure that we process things as fast as possible, indicating efficiency of thought. If humans could not adapt to be efficient in their environment, it would surely mean the end of the race. However, humans have thrived on earth, indicating that efficiency is a core concept of the human mind.
(The Shallows, Nicholas Carr. P.155-157, 221)
Professor Dean, I’m sure that the issue of why we didn’t change the syllabus interests you. While I’ll admit that it can be considered confusing why a class, when voicing obvious discontent with a professor’s policy, would not seek to change said policy when given the opportunity. However, as a jaded member of generation iPod I really didn’t find it all that strange that the class did not seek to change the syllabus. While there are obvious (to me) reasons why we didn’t change anything, the readings from the class also helped to fortify and explain the reasons. After thinking for a bit, these are the reasons that I’ve come up with.
· The biggest dissenters in the class were the ones who dropped out very early in the semester. I believe that we lost something like half of our class? The people who dropped were the ones who had the biggest issues with your syllabus, and as a result the classes average feelings about the syllabus changed from boiling point to lukewarm. The people left over after the Armageddon that was your first class were the survivors of doomsday: obviously fit to survive in the rugged landscape.
· The forum over which you asked us to discuss our issues is extremely flawed for serious debate. While it is nice to think of the internet as a medium for serious discussion about the issues troubling a class, the fact of the matter is that it is extremely difficult to remain focuses when you are presented with the internet. This has been an issue discussed in many of our texts from Digital Networks. In your book, Blog Theory, you discuss the power of affective networks. In your own words, “Blogs, social networks, Twitter, YouTube; they all produce a circulate affect as a binding technique.” How can we be expected to sit still and debate the fairness of a class syllabus (over a blog!) when we are in the grips of a countless number of networks on the internet. In Precarious Rhapsody, Franco Berardi also discusses the issue of attention on the internet. He believes that the rapid movement of data on the internet has critically maimed the human ability to digest data. Finally, today in class you said yourself how the mere presence of links on an article takes away from your ability to comprehend the article. If this is the case, then how can students be expected to formulate and articulate arguments online if they can’t even stay on the same web page for 2 minutes?
· Out of sight, out of mind. We didn’t really discuss the syllabus in class. I believe that if we had, then as a class we could have gotten somewhere with our discontent. A classroom, unlike a blog, is a medium where efforts can be easily focused to achieve one common goal. However, we did not talk about it (barring the first two days), and as a result, our desire to do so diminished.
· Technically, the movement to change the syllabus was “open-source”. You asked us, as a group, to come up with an alternative syllabus if we disliked yours. To contextualize your request in a different way, you asked a bunch of programmers to converge and fix a problem on a bug-prone package of code. In the article “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”, Frank Raymond explicitly states that open-source developments need a charismatic person to gain the attention of all the workers, and to focus/direct that attention. Now, returning to the original problem. Since we did not discuss the syllabus in class, where YOU might have been the directive force, we were required to do so on our own. No one really stood up to grab the reins of our discontent. There were scattered efforts to create a forum over which we could discuss our issues, however these efforts were obviously unsuccessful.
To address your final question, yes, I think it is quite possible the same technologies that reduce friction also displace action. When discussing movements.org and how shady it was, you referenced us to a number of websites discussing how “the technologies that reduce friction” can be used to de-radicalize youth. I might be going out on a limb, but is that not what you have seen happen to us? We got all worked up about something when we converged in a physical space, however the movement of that anger to an online forum all but dissipated it. Therefore, with the knowledge I have gained throughout the year, I would say that the evidence points to a displacement of action due to modern information technologies.
