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?