The Internet's Role in the Creation of Idiots

So, I just finished reading the first few chapters of The Shallows by Nicolas Carr and I really enjoyed it.

Carr claims the internet is making us stupid. Hard to imagine right, after-all the internet is this all knowing entity and since it has become a part of our lives, one would assume we know almost as much as it does—wrong. Carr argues that the internet is stunting our “intellectual maturation” (Carr 40) and I agree.

Comparing my younger self to the way I am now is all the evidence I need to see how the internet is stunting my brain development. When I was younger I was not allowed to watch television, play video games, or even use the internet starting at 12pm Sunday to 2:20pm Friday (when I got out of school). My only source of entertainment was reading books. Although, this may sound crazy to some it was pretty helpful. In fact I was able to look deeper into the text and get a better understanding of what I was reading; it was so helpful that I was able to recall a book in perfect detail from beginning to end (no I am not exaggerating).

As I got older, the wall my mother built grew weaker and slowly started crumble; eventually allowing me to fully explore television, video games, and you guessed it--the internet. By the time I got to high school the internet became my own personal medium no longer did I read books that were not mandated by my teacher, and even then I was not able to sit and read. The internet recruited me into its world wide webbiness of mystery; teasing me with the ability to get information fast with little to no effort. As a result I developed the loss of concentration, the fidgetiness, and the urge to find something else to do whenever it was time to read (Carr  5). Even more interestingly, I was overcome with the same urges/feelings as I read the chapters due for class tomorrow.

The internet has done a great job at prepping us to read things fast enough to get a general idea of what the subject/text is about. However, with that fast reading comes a sacrifice; our ability to contextualize and understand the meaning of what we are reading. Carr is concerned that we could possibly be losing ourselves, turning into the brainless, mindless, and sometimes unaware human robots you see in sci-fi movies. Carr understands the importance of the internet, he says so himself. However, he is concerned that we are consuming what the internet feeds us in a state of distraction and are blinded by the various things such as surfing, chatting, and emailing; which is cleverly described as multi-tasking. It is for this reason Carr wants us to maintain what is left of our brains before it is lost in this new technological era of diversion.

Re-cap of Thursday’s Class (4/14/11)

I really enjoyed the way class was taught on Thursday. Taking specific passages from the reading and speaking about it class was commendable because not only were we engaging in discussion (which is something I love to do) but we were also given the opportunity to share our individual interpretation of the readings. I do not know how Professor Dean went about choosing the passages we spoke about but they were right on the money because they were all passages I needed clarification about.  I learned a lot especially in regards to the whole 'autonomy' thing Berardi spoke about. I also got a better understanding of Berardi’s critique about connection and conjunction. Not to mention the weird terminology (flexibilization & fractionalization).

However, a point that I do not think we touched upon in class is Berardi’s argument about history being seen as “an infinite series of bifurcations” and we are victims to “concatenations” (Berardi 8). This got me thinking about one of the essay questions, more specifically question 1. We are really quick to dismiss the idea of technology taking over humanity as mere fantasy but as I thought about what Berardi said, I began to question how much of a fantasy it really is. If we are already 'succumbing' to technology, putting them in an implicit position of power, who is to say that in 10 years technology would really be in power.

Lost In Cognitive Capitol

While reading chapters 4-8 I still felt a bit confused as to what Berardi was trying to argue. I knew he had it out for capitalism and those “ratchet” Marxist, but I had trouble trying to figure out his points. Is he trying to build a connection between autonomy and the role of capitalism in the collapse of democracy or is he attacking autonomy for opening the doors for “easy labor” and the threat of a technological takeover?

On page 76 Berardi states that “autonomy is the self-regulation of the social body in its independence and in its interaction with the disciplinary norm.” What I got from Berardi’s statement is that autonomy provided people with the right to say no to their oppressors (which is this case is the “capitalist system of domination”) and in a sense establish their own sense of self government. However, I did not really see how this would be able to have a positive effect on society because society thrives on capital and if people are saying no and doing as they wish, then capital will be threatened which will ultimately have a negative impact on us—right.

Berardi mentioned the “freedom of the enterprise from the state, destruction of social protections, downsizing and externalization of production, cutback of social spending, de-taxation, and finally flexibilization” (Berardi 77), as examples of the negative impact autonomy had. In addition, he blames autonomy for the flexibility of labor capital globalization brought along (Berardi 78). I must admit I had no idea what the hell he was talking about; he completely lost me at that point because I thought globalization was a good thing, and this ideology of “flexible labor” did not make sense to me. However, I realized Berardi was basically saying autonomy allowed for capitalist enterprises to replace what was viewed as human laziness with technology that can not only do the job without any resistance but within this new subject of time. After reading this my view on globalization started to shift just a little, because I was able to see globalization as the launching pad for a technological takeover. It was basically, if they do not want to work replace them with technology, technology does not bitch. And this frightens me.

Social Layer=Another Way of Saying “Beware, I’m Watching You”

As I read The Viral Me, I found it pretty entertaining at first, the subtle humor Friedman used was pretty cool. When I read about Jiggity’s plan to invent something that can turn the iPhone into this super hand held machine, that can do nearly everything except walk your dog (who knows, they might invent an app for that) I was extremely impressed. Primarily because we, by ‘we’ I am referring to humanity, has come so far in technology that these things can actually be created. No longer do we have to say “wouldn’t it be cool if (insert device here) could…” because the conversation shifted to “I am going to make (insert device here) do…”

However, when I got to the part where Friedman began to describe eevox’s social element as one “where you will be able to see all your friends all the time” I had to step on the brakes. Do not get me wrong I love my friends but that does not mean I want to be monitored, what is this—Prison Break? In addition, he mentioned the “coming era of the kinder, gentler panopticon, when all our lives will be transparent.” What the hell kind of shit is that, do I look like I want my life to be transparent, if that was the case I would have gotten a reality show, since it is being offered to everyone and their mother (I exaggerate of course, but you get the point).

If you think that was bad, picture my reaction when I read about Rapportive, “an application that inserts the social layer into every e-mail you receive.” In other words, when someone sends you an email (or vice versa) they are also sending you their life, from their occupation to their recent activities. Hell they might as well add their social security number and credit card while at it. Furthermore, it seems as if these people (Rahul, Jiggity, and the whole SiliPY-ONcONE Valley technoStalkers) seem to have no problem with it. Like what the fu…hell is wrong with them. It is like they are bent on turning the world into a peer-to-peer Neighborhood Watch program. We cannot win because it seems with each step man or woman takes, in terms of improving technology, they jump two steps ahead with ways to better ‘see’ us.

SLMA: Social Layer My ASS

Semiocapitalism Meet Labor

As I read chapters 1-3 of Precarious Rhapsody by Franco Berardi, I had trouble figuring out what Berardi was arguing at first because he was giving a lot of history and it threw me off. I understand he wanted to intertwine his own experiences as a way to provide us with an outlook about optimistic revolts against the capitalist institutions, but it took him a bit long to get to the point.

It took me a while and a lot of re-reading to get a sense of what Berardi was trying to but eventually I got a sense of what his argument was. Berardi basically argued that the new information age allowed for capital to freely exploit the labor of humans, thus moving from the worker being the unit of capital to time being the new subject with the “mobilization of the living labor of cyberspace. (Pg. 33-5)” In other words, the rise of new media and the ease of transferring information has allowed for capitalism to take dominance to a whole new level. This reminded me of the “Googlization of Everything” discussion we had in class on Tuesday. Google is using this cyber culture of “fun and games” to exploit the labor and coax them into implicitly trading their time under the false sense of freedom, when their time actually belonged to Google. Google is controlling the workers like puppets, resulting in a dramatic change of the relationship between labor and capital.

Google: The Big Brother I Never Wanted

I admit to being one of those people who view Google as an amazing entity that does no wrong. In fact it has come to the point where I refer to Google as tool, kind of like my own super dictionary. I no longer say “I will look that up online”  instead I say “I’ll Google it,” if you ask me a question I do not know “I’ll Google it” will be my response. So, one can only imagine how much of a ‘shock’ it was to read an article comparing Google to an undercover dictator.

Anyway, the articles really opened up my mind to things. It never crossed my mind that Google could be playing the big brother I never wanted—watching my every move, waiting to trap me in the predatory vender lock-in I try to avoid. I guess you can say I was “… [focusing] so much on the miracles of Google, [I was blinded] to the ways in which Google exerts control over its domain.”

The Goooglization of Everything by Siva Vaidhyanathan really stood out to me because I found it interesting how Google has developed into this monopolizing internet power with the ability to determine the sites that will be move on and the sites that will be shown the door. Google is basically American Idol for the World Wide Web. Additionally, the article addresses the way Google courts us into giving it the permission to monitor what we do online so they can trap us into the predatory vender lock-in also known as Google’s advertising auction program. It is because of this advertisement can now follow us wherever we freaking go. I can only imagine what Google is going to be capable of in a few years, monitoring our emails (if they are not already doing it) perhaps?

WWLS: What Would Lanier Say?

The Open Source Debate

After reading Digital Maoism by Jaron Lanier, The Cultural, and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond, I found myself torn between Lanier’s view of open source as a contributor to collective identity and Raymond’s view of open source as an opportunity for enhancement.

I understand Lanier’s criticism of the bazaar ideology Raymond seems to favor. However, I do not believe open source is a horrible thing. As Raymond points out, open source utilizes the free labor of individuals to improve software we enjoy. Additionally it has the potential of ending the “predatory vender lock-in” we face with commercial enterprises such as Microsoft, who charge hundreds of dollars for program updates (i.e. windows 7 ability to support virtual hard disks and improved performance on multi-core processors) Open software attempts to break this commercial loop and provide everyone with the opportunity to get what may not have been available to them.

On the other hand the bazaar ideology has the potential as Lanier would say “lead to the loss of originality and individual intelligence.” The reason is because people would no longer feel the need to tap into their own creativity because they are so reliant on the creativity of others which results in the dumbing down individual intelligence in favor of the hive mind. But then again universities such as MIT, Tufts, and John Hopkins view open source as a way to advance knowledge and education for students, so can it really causes individual intelligence to die down. Granted it opens the door for the sharing of essays, projects, and exams which can cause people to disregard their own intelligence since they can copy information from somewhere else, which is similar to the argument Lanier was making about the way in which information is put into Wikipedia. But with the rise of new technology and the popularity of new digital media I find it hard for students to get away with it.

Ultimately, the use of open source is debatable for both pro and con, even as I write this blog post I am still unsure as to which side I am on.

I Don't See It, Can You Show Me: Analysis of Movements.org

First off, I wish Professor Dean did not post the article criticizing movements.org because it framed how I should interpret this website. After reading the article I went to the website with a bias and found myself exploring the pages with the intention of finding something “sketchy.” The blank slate I was prior to reading the article was tainted and I no longer had the non-bias attitude.

As I analyzed the website I noticed the group focused on the use of new media/technology (Twitter, Facebook, & Flickr) as a way to reach out to youth, which I believe is a smart idea since technology is the best way to reach younger people in this new digital era. It also was somewhat reminiscent of the Obama campaigns’ tactic to reach out to youth. I found it interesting that the website was written with a “fighting voice” because I viewed it as another tactic used to mobile people and get them energized. As I read the blogs and subtitles I found myself really intrigued by what they were saying, I felt as if I should be about of this movement. Additionally, I noticed words that have the ability to motive such as, awareness, free; build, change, and networking were enlarged in word clouds.

When I looked at the summits I noticed they had very popular people such as Whoopi Goldberg, Hillary Clinton, and that guy who co-founded Facebook in attendance at these summits. This was another great tact because a lot of young people look at these individuals as role models and if they see their role models supporting what appears to be a good cause then they will too. As a fan of Whoopi Goldberg when I saw that she—someone who is an advocate for social justice—supported the group, it in a sense validated what they were doing.

In addition to this I noticed that the people who are in charge of the group appear to be young up-to-date individuals (they all had twitter accounts). I viewed this as a way to appeal to their audience because it is well known that young people would not be interested in a group that was ran by people who appeared to be old. To be honest I found this group to be pretty cool and I did not see the things the article criticized them for.

**On a side note I discovered the company was founded in San Diego, California. The name I got for the founder of the website was “Privacy Service” and the email address was “privacy@emailaddressprotection.com” which is weird because the website claims the founders are Jared Cohen, Joe Liebman, and Roman Tsunder so why would they try to hide it. However, I did find a number: (619)393-2111 but I did not call it.

March 24th Class in Real Time

When I walked into class the first thought that came mind was, where the hell is the professor. After someone in class told me what was on the blog I could not help but laugh because it found it very funny that we were 'ditched' and told to fend for ourselves.

Moving on to the class discussion, we decided to talk about the chapters and get everyone's take on what they thought about the chapters. We first spoke about chapter 6 and distaste what we believed what Andrejevic's main point in this chapter was. I raised the question I had on my blog as to why Andrejevic viewed the use of technology for political mean was a bad thing because it would allow us to get a better understanding about the politicians we are electing.

Brian and Tim raised the point that politician can use technology to target certain people and ultimately not have a particular stance on anything because they can send different messages to different people and when they are elected this allows for them to do as try please. Jamar also chimed in and told me that it is similar to the 'big brother' position commercial entities use. In other words just because technology is available it does not mean we will have the ability to monitor the politicians who are monitoring us. Additionally, Katherine brought up the feedback loop of fear which is basically what I was talking about on my blog.

We touched on chapter 7 but it did not generate as much of a discussion as chapter 6 did. I found it very difficult to blog and speak at the same time because I needed to gather my thoughts which could not be done by participating and listening to the discussion. However, I came up with a strategy of taking notes during the class discussion, after our discussion is over and everyone is starting to blog I organized my thoughts and wrote about what we discussed. Overall, the class discussion went pretty well everyone seemed to agree on what was being said and it also allowed for any confusion about the reading to be cleared up. Honestly, I actually like the "class teaching the class" idea because we were better engaged when it was amongst us.

Terrorism Fuels Capitalism, While Technology Can Fuel Democracy--Right?

I found Andrejevic’s argument about the government’s post 9/11 surveillance tactics in chapter 6, very interesting. In fact it was his use of the word ‘framing’ (Pg. 163) to describe how the government presents the notion of terrorism, that caught my attention. This is because framing is something that the media does to outline how events are interpreted. When Andrejevic used this terminology it was as if he was implicitly telling us (the reader) that government was trying to control how we will view terrorism.

As I read on I began to see how the government framed terrorism. We were made to believe that we are constantly at danger and the only way to participate in the ‘war on terror’ is by giving up our privacy and submitting to surveillance (Pg. 164-5). What I got from the book is that the government exploited terrorism in order to get the green light for turning the USA into a country wide neighborhood watch program and we are so blinded by it—we believe it is a good thing. Additionally, we open the doors for capitalist enterprises to cash in on our vulnerability and offer us “the 29.95 survival skill manual” (Pg. 166) that we rush to buy because we are told we need it in order to fight terrorism.

Moving on to chapter 7, Andrejevic starts off by talking about the potential of technology to fuel democracy primarily because it allows for the ease of access to information, deliberation, and accountability which are things Andrejevic attributes to a successful democracy (Pg. 190). I agree with Andrejevic because it is technology is giving power back to people we no longer have to wait around to find out what is going on, we can find it ourselves. The revolution in Egypt is a great example as to how technology facilitated democracy. The people in Egypt were able to organize and get information out through the use of technology, without it I highly doubt they would have been as successful as they were. 

Andrejevic then shifts his focus to the way new technology is being used merely for political ends. Andrejevic argues that politicians use technology as a form of surveillance to get an idea on how/where to recruit voters (Pg. 192), similar to that of commercial enterprises. To be honest I do not see the harm of using technology for political ends, especially since technology according to Andrejevic himself “allows for the ease of access to information, deliberation, and accountability,” so would not the use of technology for political ends be a better way for people to actually know what the people they elect into office are really about.

iOwn You: The Dark Side of iNteractivity

iMust admit that the first two chapters of the book, iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era by Mark Andrejevic was pretty  interesting, a lot of  the things that he addressed in his book, we spoke about in class. From the way companies profit from the free labor of others to the ‘stalkerish’ traits ads have started to developed, I was really intrigued by what Andrejevic was talking about.

From the two chapters, I noticed Andrejevic was pretty consistent with the argument: ‘interactivity does not mean democratization.’ In other words, interactivity is just another tactic used to make us believe in this ideology of ‘false change’ or as Andrejevic put it, “[a strategy] for monitoring and surveillance.” (Pg. 5) I agree with Andrejevic because we are constantly hearing about these new technologies that can change the world for the better and unfortunately—we believe it, we do not question its validity. In fact this is something Jaron Lanier criticized in his book, You Are Not A Gadget when he spoke criticized the ideology of these digi-geeks, who view technology as the savor of all things that need saving. I found Andrejevic’s example of TiVo as one of the technologies that he critiques; I did not view TiVo as a technology that can be used to monitor us but after hearing his argument, I began to look at TiVo as this freaky little alien monitoring our behavior then reporting back to the mother ship—in this case it is the capitalist companies.

Even more interesting, his example of how Nike uses the customization feature on their site as a way to monitor what people like so that they can produce products that fit that similar description, reminded me of the free labor discussion we had in class. Although, I understand where Andrejevic is coming I do not really see this is a big deal. I say this with caution, primarily because I do not feel we should be monitored and tracked—especially without our consent, but then again some of these traceable things enable companies to make products that we enjoy.

For Andrejevic the rise in interactivity just means the implicit loss of our freedom, because we can no longer do things online without being tracked. For example whenever we go to a website cookies are embedded into our IP Address, which allows websites to monitor what we are doing, when we are doing it, and how often we do it. One might view this as an invasion of privacy but as Andrejevic implies, we gave that up when we accepted the technology is our savor ideology.

However, as Andrejevic acknowledges in chapter 2, interactivity is not always a bad thing because it allows us to become wearier of the people we associate ourselves with. (Pg. 38-9) Although this opens the eyes of individuals to those around them, it also has the potential to cause people to question what/who is real and what/who is fake, which I do not really see as a bad thing due to the constant rise in scams and identity theft (such as, the fake profiles of celebrities people make on Facebook).

I Can Read Clearly Now: Blog Theory Chapter 3 & 4

Before I go on, I must say that I really enjoyed reading chapter 3. As oppose to the previous chapters it was much more relatable, in the sense that I can understand the claims being made (priarily due to the touches of modernity that Dean threw into the chapter).


As I read chapter 3 there were a few things that really stood out to me. The first was the seemingly comparison of blog to social networking sites, such as Facebook and Myspace. The reason is because although Facebook has some similarities to blogs, where you can make it as impersonal or personal as you like; I do not think comparing blogs to social networking sites are comparable. When Dean aid that social networking site share a 'similar fantasy' to that of blogs I found that very hard to see. Why? Because with blogs you do not have to post a picture, you do not have to post your real name and you can make it as personal as you wish. However, with Facebook, there is that barrier barring you from reaching that anonmity that blogs provide. Sure, one can use the privacy setting to control who cannot see what they are posting in their status or notes; but that takes away from the freedom that blogs provide. Additionally, Facebook has an outline set for its users, it dictates how much you say, what you can say, what pictures you can poster; whereas blogs are designed for you to do what you please.


Another thing that stood out to me was Dean's discussion of the networked media's challenge to collective identity. Correct me if I am wrong but my interpretation of this was that we as a collective society are control through social mediums, that strip us of identity, something she speaks about on page 76. I agree with Dean because influence by what is fed to us through these mediums,in fact the social norms that we live by are what was channeled though networked media.


As I read through chapter 3, I found Dean's criticism of word clouds pretty interesting, especially the claim that word clouds:


"...transmit the intensity, it might incite a feeling or a response, but it doesn’t invite the interrogation of that response or what induced it."


The reason is because word have more than one meaning. For example, the word hot can mean someone is attractive, sometihing is cool, or something is literally hot. In addition, Martin Luther King used "dream" over and over in his famous speech, yet people were still able to understand what induced it.


Chapter 4 was also interesting, I agree with Dean's critism of trying to build a relationship between one's online activity and actvisim. The reason is because people tend to think that saying things against the government online is going to change something and from what I understood about Dean's points, is that online activity does not and will not equal political change, that is just like saying Twitter led to the revolution in Egypt. Although, it helped people get information out, the revolution was already boiling up prior to its use.

Answer Me People: Where the Hell Did It Go?!?

Where the hell did it go? What the hell happened? For weeks I have been trying to figure out where the drive that was once present in our class went. Earlier in the semester our class was much more into our discussions, call me crazy but I enjoyed the open discussions that sometimes lead to a respectful debate amongst our peers. Now as I look around the classroom I see a bunch of blank stares and "I am not interested attitudes." Could it be the new 'summarize the chapters” method that was introduced to us a few weeks ago? If that is the case then I propose that we revert back to the way it was where we would summarize the book at the end, because I feel as if the chapter summaries take away from the discussions that we were all once engaged in. 

Another thing that has been bothering me is the non-negotiations that have been happening with our class. We were all given the opportunity to basically control how the syllabus would look, yet no one with the exception of a few, actually did that. Come on people, when was the last time you had a professor that gave you the opportunity to change what you will be graded on. I know a lot of people (i.e. those taking the health profession courses, which is far from easy) that would have gladly traded places to have the opportunity that we were given. It is not like we were asked to write a 4 page proposal on why we shouldn't have certain things, it was just a simple present your argument and why. Again, I ask where the hell it went and what the hell happened? 

Where is the Proof: Blog Theory, Just as the Tile Says--Theory

I just finished reading Chapter 1 and 2 of Blog Theory, by Jodi Dean. Although I found it as a somewhat easier read; similar to the other readings from the class, I had to re-read them a few times to make sure I am following what she is saying. After reading these two chapters, I noticed some similarities to Terranova in the way that she presented her claims. As with Terranova, I noticed that Dean based a lot of her claims on the theories of others as opposed to providing material evidence. For example, from page 19-23 Dean touches upon the rise of cyberculture as a way to secure the autonomy or freedom of individuals. It is then implied on page 22, that technology—the internet in specific, which was intended to act as a tool of freedom can be used in a way that will oppress one’s freedom through communicative capitalism. Although, this is a logical argument Dean failed to provide concrete evidence as to this happening, instead moving on to the theory of Christopher Kelty; I would have liked for Dean to provide examples of this oppression.

Another thing that I had issue with while reading this book was the claim that the internet:

 “[is responsible for] increases in economic inequality and consolidation of neoliberal capitalism in and through globally networked communication.”

Again, Dean failed to provide any evidence of the internet being responsible for such a thing. In fact one can argue the complete opposite and say that because of globally networked communication companies such as Apple have been able to prosper, thus providing the creation of jobs. In my opinion without globally networked communication fortune 500 companies would not exist. I am not saying that the statement is incorrect, I am sure that there are companies that have suffered but I would have to love have seen examples of such companies or industries that have went downhill through globally networked communication. 


Nevertheless, there were somethings in the chapter that I completely agreed with, more specifically, the example of the relationship between books and communicative capitalism. At first I did not understand how communicative capitalism was responsible for the need to be 'the first,' but as I continued to read I began to understand how it came to be. However, I could not help but wonder if this need to be first attitude was a bad thing, correct me if I am wrong but isn't competition a good thing?

Although, I went a tad criticism crazy, I believe that Dean had some valid points but she just failed to back them up with evidence, which is important in a society where evidence is everything.

Oooh 'The Horror' Continues: Network Culture Chapter 4 & 5

I must start off by saying that the chapter review sessions in class have really helped me get a better grasp on what Terranova is talking about. In fact, with the new insight that I have gained, I am now able to better apply what she is talking about to previous reading that was assigned. However, when I got to chapter 4 & 5, I had to re-read them a few times.

As I read [struggled] through chapter 4 I found it to be somewhat reminiscent to chapter 1. I felt that she focused a lot on theoretical foundations and did not provide any data to back the claims that are made, surrounding the extensive details about the evolution of biological computation and cellular automata. For example, when Terranova states that biological computing allows for the sidestepping of the organism she is basing this from the theory of someone else, without any material examples of this happening. If she mentions examples then they completely flew over my head.

As opposed to chapter 4, chapter 5 was a easier to comprehend. I was able to catch on to the relationship that Terranova was trying to bridge between communication and 'the masses' she refers to on pages 133/35. This reminded me of the social entropy that she spoke about in chapter 1, where she spoke about the correlation with the communication of information and entropy—unpredictability to its significance in the nineteenth century. The reason for this is because in chapter 5, Terranova speaks about the social entropy that communication and the mass has already begun in regards to the media and politics. From what I understood, Terranova is trying to say that the intensification of communication and the masses allows for the ease of manipulation. (pg. 136)

The Destructions of Us: Thanks Digital Market

As I read chapter 3 of Terranova’s book which seemed to be focused on the evil side of the digital market, I found myself reflecting on what Terranova described as the glamorization of the digital economy and those who are enslaved to it. I found it interesting that in both Terranova’s and Lanier’s book they both mention how the emergence of new technologies played a role in the evil that the digital market had impoliticly contained within. The reason for this is because when one thinks of new technology; progress is what is most commonly associated with it however from reading this chapter I began to realize that this progress can be both negative and positive. It then dawned on me that it was the digital market that was responsible for the dotcom crash that Lovnik described in his article. A quote from the article Net consolidation is a natural, accelerated business cycle, on Cnet.com, in my opinioned summed up what Terranova, Lovnik, and Lanier was trying to convey to their readers:

“Changes in technology have threatened to wipe out some of the past year's hottest Internet niches altogether. Business-to-business companies, which connect product makers and their suppliers in super-efficient virtual trading posts, may fade after big companies develop software and expertise to build their own marketplaces.

Likewise, portals may languish as powerful search technology enables people to mine data not only from the Web but also from individual PCs scattered around the world. Napster, which allows people to swap MP3 music files with other users, links roughly 10 million desktop PCs--more computational force than all the servers at Yahoo. File-sharing technology from Freenet and Gnutella present an even greater threat by promoting distribution of intellectual property from movies to spreadsheets.”

In other words, technology has the potential to be the demise of capitalism. To link this with what Terranova talks about, we have become so wrapped up in technological development that we begin to believe in the illusion that technology is what  will drive our capital; which in reference to Lovnik’s article, was our demise.  

Network Culture Part 2

After class on Tuesday I definitely got a better understanding of what Terranova was talking about. I found the summary of the chapter very helpful because I was able to start the second chapter with some background knowledge about the topic at hand. Chapter 2 was a much better read (I see why she enjoyed chapter 2 as oppose to chapter 1) because she was not jumping around as she did in chapter 1; her thoughts were easier to decipher and the works she referred too (Lovnik for example) were easy to grasp.

I enjoyed the part where Terranova spoke about how the interactions between various technologies such as telegraphs and satellites & canals and railways have influence the creation of another. I say this because it is to identify the correlation between these technologies. For example if telegraphs were not invented then the existence of the satellite would not be possible because telegraphs paved the way for the transmition of information and the birth of communication through long distances. After the satellite was created this form of transition was enhanced to a whole new level. This is what I believe Terranova was trying to convey to the reader in chapter 1, the importance that technology has in this modern era of communication. I also found Terranova’s connection between technology and the creation of nations & nationalism, because this then brings us back to the underlying topic of communicating through information. Without communication then nations and nationalism would not be possible due to the fact that they heavily rely on the communication between people to become successful.

 

Network Culture Chapter 1

Before I started to read the book, Network Culture by Tiziana Terranova I thought it would be a change from the Lanier Manifesto—thing. I guess you can say I thought it would be more of an easy read, so imagine my surprise when I actually started to read the first chapter of the book. I felt as if was reading a bonus chapter from You Are Not A Gadget, just like Lanier Terranova use these techy words that you have to actually rely on context clues (reminds you of junior high school right) just to understand what the hell she was talking about. However, as I read more into the chapter, I was able to get the basic idea of what Terranova was trying to convey to her readers and why she started off her book in such a peculiar way. I say peculiar because she started of the chapter talking about how the spread of information through communication is a commodity that has opened up the door for discussion on hot topics such as file sharing, then slowly drifted into a talking about the communication code and its role in noise, which I soon figured out referred to outside disturbances.

 I believe the reason why Terranova did this was to prepare us for when she goes further into communication theory, which really opened my eyes. The reason for this is because I never paid attention to the importance of how to communicate information and the way that it can be easily distorted by outside sources, whether it is intentional or not. I loved the example that Terranova gave of the way politicians view their ‘target’ audience not as people but as receivers of information and thus try their best to get their information to us without interference from outside sources/influences.  Conversely the example of the wife and her convicted husband was a bit confusing because it seemed as if she was talking about communicating in code and then she would go off in a different direction. For example when she spoke about the ‘noise’ distorting the information that the wife was trying to husband and the new method the wife had came up with, I did not really understand what she was talking about; because if the wife could communicate with him to tell him that she made up a new code then why talk in code? Make sense—sure as hell did not to me.

Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality: The Future of the Blog

First, I must say that the feeling of finally moving on from Jaron Lanier was amazing. No longer will I have to spend large amounts of time, browsing Google in an attempt to decode some of the shit he was talking about, throughout his book—I mean “Manifesto.” However, I must say that I did learn a few things from the book, such as the way humanity has begun to see technology as the ends of all means.

I was also able look at myself and question how technology has not changed only humanity but—me as an individual, I started to question whether or not my opinion things actually came from me or the majority did; it was from this that I was able to evaluate to what extent technology has affected my social life. In spite of this, I must admit that I will not be in a rush to read Lanier next book.

On a different note, after reading the article Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality, I was able to see the world of blogging in a different light. I never knew how hard it is for bloggers to get noticed, and even more interesting I did not realize how much a role one person plays in the success of a blog. This brings me to the quote

"Diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality."

I chose that quote is because I feel it summed up everything that the article was talking about. I found it very interesting how the diversity and the choice of individuals can cause blogs to end up in a bell curve format; where the blogs that were at the top overshadowed the blogs that were just starting to get on the scene. The example of how one person can make a blog popular and overshadow other blogs focusing on the same topic was really interesting. However, I did not understand the part about “becoming a broadcast outlet, distributing material without participating in conversations about it.” Did it mean that more popular someone gets the harder it is to have a voice? If so it does not make any sense at all. Can someone please explain it to me?

Questions for Thought

Today's class was pretty interesting, I like that we all were able to bring a variety of perspectives to the table. It made the discussion much more enjoyable. Below are the questions that I had for the class:

1)  Has technology dumbed down/replaced, part of our collective humanity?

2) After reading Part 2 and 3, I got the idea that Lanier was blaming the Facebook/Twitter generation for the negative affects that file sharing has on our society, more specifically the music industry. Did any of you view it that way? Why?

You Are Not A Gadget: Part 2

I have noticed that a lot of people are saying that Mr. Lanier's book is full of ramblings and half-answered questions but I believe that he intended his book to be. I agree that I found the way he wrote quite annoying but Jaron Lanier is known as the father of virtual reality technology, thus one can assume he wrote his book for the computer techy reader; which explains all of the technical words that we have trouble wrapping our heads around. As for the half-answered questions and ramblings, I believe that Lanier wrote his book as if it was a blog; by leaving his questions unanswered he is opening the door for his readers to try and think of the answer on their own. This makes sense since he is all about human intelligence and the need for people to formulate their own opinions.

Moving onto part 2 of his book, Lanier is addressing a series of issues, from file sharing to the role of technology in creating a new way to express art--musically. However, what caught my attention was his war on file sharing and the need for technology to preserve humanity. Lanier was clearly against file sharing, he viewed it as a roadblock for upcoming musicians, and from the looks of it he viewed the Facebook/Twitter generation as the creators of this roadblock. I understand where Lanier is coming from because file sharing is taking money from the music industry but at the same time I do not feel that we should get all of the blame. There are artist such as Radiohead who use file sharing as a means to promote their music. This is because with file sharing it is reaching more people faster thus providing the wanted publicity for the artist, so for Lanier to say that file sharing is hurting the industry is a bit farfetched.

On a different note, when Lanier spoke about the role technology plays in the preservation of humanity I instantly thought of a quote by Albert Einstein:

“It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity.”

The reason for this is because we have become so dependent on technology that if it was to be taken away there would be absolute chaos, can you imagine New York City without traffic lights or a world without internet access? It is for this reason that I agree with Lanier’s claim. I am not saying that technology is the savior of humanity but it sure as hell is pretty damn close.

Part 2 of Lanier’s book was similar to that of part 1, filled with unanswered questions that made you want know more and I believe that Lanier does a great job at this.

No Exams Required: A Modest Proposal

During one of our ‘bell curve’ negations I brought up the idea that our class should do away with the midterm and final exam. After I mentioned it a few students expressed their agreeance and added:

“Exams favor those who are good at test taking and exams are not accurate measures of our intellect or knowledge.”

Although, the bias of exams is a very good argument, it is not the basis of my reasoning for not having them in our class.

From our blogs to our passionate group discussions, our class is clearly one that is hands on.  It is not one where we should have exams, I understand that exams are not only to make sure that we are doing the reading, but we understand it. However, I feel that is what our blogs and group discussions are for; if we were not doing our readings then our blogs and discussions would be bland. Yesterday is a good example of how our group discussions implicitly tested our knowledge and grasp on the material; there was not a single person that did not have anything to say about the reading. In fact, even when it was not their turn everyone was still giving their input; if this is not proof that we are on our shit, then what is?

On the other hand, if one does not find group discussions and blogs convincing reasons to not have exams in our class, then what about the papers we are assigned? Unlike exams, we will not be as stressed out wondering what is going to be on the paper because we will know what question to expect. On the current syllabus our midterm is March 8^th,can you imagine the stress we will endure as we review Lovnick’s dull abstract (which was in January ) and Terranova’s main critique of network culture (which is in mid-February). The stress alone will cause us to forget things that we have learned. However, with the paper we are able to add our personality into our paper and incorporate what have learned much better, thus allowing us to fully showcase our knowledge of the material we were assigned.

Not only are exams implicitly biased but they can hinder us from demonstrating our ability, which is the reason for this modest proposal not to require exams.

You Are Not Gadget: Part 1

At first I was dreading to read the book, "You Are Not a Gadget," by Jaron Lanier because I assumed it would be a boring technical book, that focuses on the ins and outs of the internet. Although, that may be enticing to some, for me the thought reading something like that made me want to fall asleep. However, after finally giving the book a chance and reading the first chapter, I must admit that I was really intrigued by what Lanier had to say.

A part from chapter 1 that stood out to me was when Lanier spoke about journalistic Stockholm syndrome. I found this part very interesting because I remember when the internet started to increase in popularity and everything from ordering food to reading novels can be read online; newspaper companies dreaded this new wave of digital media because it would hurt them economically. However, as Lanier points out, newspaper companies such as the New Yorks have been pushing for digital politics which will definitely hurt them and would be considered a smart idea. As a matter of fact this holds the potential to eliminate the newspaper industry entirely. Lanier's usage of the term Stockholm syndrome was definitely accurate because it should how naive the newspaper industry is behaving.

Another part from chapter 1 that stood out to me was when he spoke about the way technology changes people.  I found this part interesting because from the reading Lanier portrayed technology as having a positive effect on people, while I on the other hand believe that technology actually has a negative effect on people. I agree with Lanier when he said "different media designs stimulate different potentials in human," but not  for the reasons that he is inferring. Technology has made us dependent on it, for example we rely so much on our smart phones (BlackBerry's, iPhones, etc...) that we hardly use our brain to remember important phone numbers, besides 911. This is a perfect example of how technology has negatively changes us, from independent adults to dependent children.

Critique of Group Time Lines

The timelines that were presented in class on Tuesday were pretty good, I enjoyed all of them. I liked how the timelines were not the same, they had different structures, designs, even a variety of categories were presented. This was important because the presentations were not so redundant.


Group 1-PowerPoint Presentation
I loved how they had the dates in chronological order it made the presentation easy to follow. I also like the fact they placed the information into categories and presented both the negative and positive aspects of the internet. However, I must say that there was too much text on the slides, power points are used as a guide not a place to start a report. I also did not like the color of the text that was chosen, it conflicted with the background, they should have either used a lighter color (white) or a different background.


Group 2-Film Presentation (My Group)
I was impressed with the turn out of the clip. However, I feel that the clips could have been shortened to better line up with the voice-over, this would have made the way the film ended less awkward.

Group 3-Timeline Presentation
I liked the fact that this was not your typical boring timeline, it had a hint of modernity to it, which made the presentation enjoyable. The text, structure, and images (when available) all flowed very nicely and complimented each other. However, I felt that the presentation was a bit repetitive, I kinda lost interest when they continuously presented music sharing websites that were shut down.

Group 4-PowerPoint Presentation
First off I must say that I liked the fact that the power point was used as a guide and not as the substance of the presentation. This allowed for the presenters to showcase their knowledge on what they were talking about. I also like the fact that they did not have to much text on the power point, it looked well put together. However, just as group 1, their font color conflicted with the background which made the text hard to see at some parts.

Overall the presentations were good and I cannot wait to see what everyone has in store for their next presentation.

The Internet and Its Complexities: A Response to the Readings

The internet is like a large rubix cube, full of complexities that only certain individuals can unwind, within minutes. However, the internet also possess something that anyone can use to their disposal—knowledge. I am not about the knowledge one gains from googling historic information, instead the knowledge I of speak of is what one typically gains throughout their lifetime.  It is from the reading that I draw this conclusion, but to single out one in particular is extremely hard. The reason being is for the most part they all complement one another, filling a gap the other possessed.

The article, Recent Futures: TAZ, Wired and the Internet by Geert Lovink was one of the readings that stood out to me primarily because it opened my eyes to Cyberculture and its role in what the internet is today. I found it interesting how Lovink spoke about the how the internet shifted from a tech-savvy leisure for creativity to a big business. The motto that he used to describe what the internet has become:

“Catch the youngsters, squeeze the creativity out of them…and sell out as soon as you can”

really stuck out to me. This is because this greed to make money is what led to the web crash mentioned in another article Geert Lovink wrote, entitled After the Dotcom Crash: Recent Literature on the Internet Business and Society. In fact, companies have found ways to use the internet to manipulate people into buying their products by making their ads appear on every page you browse after leaving their website. From both articles it was made clear to me that the internet became nothing more than a ‘get rich quick’ system and as the internet expanded corruption and bankruptcy followed. However, it is from this disarray that the knowledge comes from because the crash of the internet led to people learning from their greed and how to be content with what they have.

Although, the internet was used by some in shady ways, the articles, History of the Internet and Its Flexible Future by Leonard Kleinrock and The Past and Future History of the Internet by Barry Leiner portrayed the internet in a different light. Kleinrock’s article touched on the internet as the reason for a change in our behavior and attitudes as it started to shape us into a more informational society. I agree with Kleinrock because many people today get a majority of their information from the internet, actually the internet has made it possible for social websites such as Facebook to become huge sources when it comes to gathering information. This only provides a glimpse of what the internet is capable of doing in fact the article by Leiner takes this even further and suggests that the internet can only get bigger and better, as its complexities are explored. I agree with Leiner because not only has the internet open doors for a new way to communicate around but it has also revolutionized the way we look at technology, take touch screens for example, without the internet this would not have been possible.

Overall the articles provided me with a glimpse as to what the internet really is; they did a great job at showing me the good, the bad, and the ugly as well as enabling me to explore my own feelings about the internet and the direction that is going today. As I stated before, the internet is full of complexities, but within all that complication is a great deal of knowledge that is just waited to be consumed and what is done with that knowledge is entirely up to you.