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.