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)