To sum-up: A Wordle of this blog

http://www.wordle.net/. Images of Wordles are licensed

Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It

Control. Management. Surveillance.

The average internet user probably rarly thinks of these memes when they’re surfing their favorite webpages, tweeting, and shopping on etsy.com (oh wait that’s what I was doing earlier and I did think of those terms...hmm).

Zittrain was a really interesting read. He took the topic of internet beyond what I ever really considered even since getting in this class I hadn’t pushed my thought process quite where he went. The basic history is that PCs were once more creatively constructed so that the user could contribute to the experience, not just be subject to it. Yet since it’s public arrival, the internet and technology itself has become dependent on the manufacturer's specifications. For example, the iPhone isn’t an interface that a user can change or modify to their needs. It’s required to be on the AT&T network (my main pet peeve against it), there are a set number of applications that do only certain functions, etc. etc. It is “locked down” so to speak. This locked-down technology leaves a lot of room for the user’s activity to be controlled and monitored.

Part One basically sums up Zittrain’s arguments on how the Net was formed on a principle of generativity which has since gone to the way-side with new non-generative technologies that strive on control and surveillance. His main arguments for a better future, are that information technology works best when it is generative. He believes Wikipedia to be a generative enterprise and a successful example of how flexibility in content creation can work.

The big question I had though was the “how to stop it” part of the book title. I guess I just didn’t quite understand how anything would be stopped, and maybe this is me being nit picky about terms. I think what he’s talking about is actually how to change it, or redirect it, something like that. This book seems to be a call to action, more so than I think any of our other reads this semester. It’s not just a manifesto but I feel Zittrain is trying to really get at something. So that probably affects the language use, using more action terms and such. I guess what I had a hard time understanding, was how do we keep generative technologies from becoming non-generative. Maybe this is a pitfall of the human condition. The internet in it’s infancy was open and innovative and now it has fallen prey to security issues, abuse, and harmful acts. Isn't that so human of us to ruin things? We've done this through out history, no?

And also I don’t see all recent technology as being as non-generative and harmful as Zittrain does. Take TiVo for instance, which I find to be more against the control of the system than any other TV technology. Sure there is still limitation to it, but it allows the user to be free of the schedules of broadcast television. There is not the need to sit and watch a show at the required time of 8/7c every a wednesday night. And being able to skip the commercials means that you are not subject to the advertiser’s suggestions of what to wear, who to be, where to shop and eat. Sure, you get that kind of socialization through TV shows just as often as the commercials, but there is something about commercials I just find obnoxious for the most part.

In the end I do see the potential and real existence of maintenance and control in all the technologies we use. Even in something like Wikipedia though it has it’s own type of control. Anyone can change what you post. Who’s to say that anyone should be able to do that? Just like who’s to say that only AT&T can provide you with phone service on your iPhone? In both situations an other has a contribution in your actions and your life. You are not a completely free agent in this world.

Thacker & Galloway

This week’s reading, The Exploit by Galloway and Thacker, was definitely an interesting juxtaposition to last week’s 6 Degrees by Watts. Watts talked about networks using scientific method and computation, showing the ability of networks to spread and multiply. Between the two writings, there’s a common theme that networks are powerful. Whether its a file sharing system, a community of people, a virus (the computer kind or the biological kind), we interact with networks everyday.

My fellow movie buffs and I enjoy playing a little 6 Degrees of [insert actor of choice] to see who knows more movie trivia. We used to only play using Kevin Bacon but we found that we knew more movies by Tom Hanks than Kevin Bacon (incidentally both were in Apollo 13, so you can always connect the Baconator by that route if you choose). I’m sure I’m not the only one who has met a person and immediately started talking and name dropping to see what kind of mutual acquaintances we can discover between us. In talking with my dad this weekend, he vented about the frustrations of Microsoft and PCs because his home computer just up and died a couple weeks ago. Once again I tried to give him the ‘mac talk,’ alas, to no avail. Beginning last week, I became very familiar with a biological kind of network. Call it ‘the bug’ or ‘flu’ or ‘that annual winter cold-like thing,’ it started with a co-worker and has now spread pretty much through my whole store. Yayy networks!

Now The Exploit goes further. To me it seemed like, for G&T, there’s a danger to the power of networks because the information is widely available now online. Basically everything has become searchable. Your entire life’s work can be tagged, organized into a streamlined hierarchy, and small enough to fit on flash drive the size of a bluetooth ear piece. The title is a good indication to the book. ‘Exploiting‘ is to take advantage of something. G&T explain that networks are increasingly easier to exploit the bigger they get. Part of me loves that Macs are becoming more popular, but then at the same time I don’t want to be targeted by viruses like the PCs are.

‘Nodes’ and ‘edges’ was a recurring set of terms. Nodes being the businesses of networks, like Google. The Edges are the potential of the network to distribute information to people, and for them to use these businesses for their own benefits. I don’t know what to make of this completely. Thanks to the power of the flu-network, my head is still in a fog so this was an extra tough read. I guess it’s again about the potential of networks, and the tendency of networks to kind of monopolize, which then makes them more susceptible.

The main thing I picked up in these network readings is that there is a tremendous amount of potential ability of networks to spread knowledge, to spread a cause, but at the same time, using the same tools, a network can be very malicious. Thinking of that as a concept or theme for this whole class, I think you could compare the good/bad potential of networks to the good/bad potential of ‘old media.’ Newspapers can distribute useful information, or they can print slander (or libel?). The same goes for television, movies that pretend to be ‘based on a true story,’ and yes, blogs like this. Basically, you should look at everything with an open mind that is explorative, and not just a sponge for every bit of info you come across; if you are a conscious consumer, then you have a good start to navigating the maze that is the media, and the world.

Networked Publics, Profiles, and Facebook

In her dissertation (oh my, is 400 pages what I have to look forward to?), Boyd addresses the “networked publics” specifically in teenagers use of social networks. Chapter 4 looks at how identity is created, and managed, on social sites. She references several examples of teenagers’ profiles on Myspace. She talks about the “first generation to publicly articulate itself, to have to write itself into being as a precondition of social participation.” Referring to Foucault, whom we are familiar with from this class, the identities created on social networks are subject to “self-monitoring.”

And despite “all that is reveled [in profiles], there is much more that is not.” I can see her point here. Looking through my own Facebook friend’s profiles, I don’t see too many ‘strong opinions’ expressed. People are pretty moderate and not likely to put anything up that is likely to be offensive. That might reflect who my own friends are, although some of them I do know to have very strong, maybe “radical” opinions. No, I think for the most part people are just not usually looking to get in a large debate or argument about controversial topics in the Facebook format. That could be based on what people my age use social networks for, which is mainly keeping up with friends.

I reference Facebook because that is what most people I know use, as opposed to Myspace which I do not use because I know very few people who do. Membership on sites is largely based on the real world, which Boyd did address in her paper, and she also pointed out that profile information is largely based in the physical space also. So Facebook started in 2004, and by spring 2005 as I was gearing up for college, many of my friends were joining because that was a good way to keep in touch as we all went off to different schools. In the physical space, we were going to be separated, so to keep in touch we created profiles in the internet space.

I wish I had taken a snapshot of my ‘first’ profile, just to see how I organized it back then compared to now. I remember I use to list every movie and band I liked, creating these long long lists that I don’t know who would bother to read. I don’t know one single reason why I did this. Partially out of indecisiveness on what a single favorite or short list would be because I do have varied interests. Part of me probably hoped out of such a long list that most people would see something in common with me. Now I don’t think about the majority so much when I share a link or write a note. My links and notes are pretty specific to a smaller circle of friends who I know will enjoy it or comment, like when I want to share an amazing video. Every once in a while I post something with the intention that it could help a cause and I hope that many people check it out - like posting about PAC-We, or freerice.com, or promoting a friend's band.

There are elements of identity that Facebook doesn’t ask, I’m sure out of fear of backlash and lawsuits. They don’t ask race, for instance. Very few of the answers to the elements on your profile are limited to a few choices, which I think most people appreciate. Like in Political Views, it is blank so that you can refer to yourself as anything, like: (these are real examples) “Bipolar moderate.” “I think what I want,” “Screw parties, unless they have games,” “Revolutionary republicanism, abuse of power comes as no surprise.” In a way, not limiting choices to Democrat/Republican/Libertarian suggests that people are aware that those are not the only ideas about politics. It allows the user to be really specific about their ideas At the same time, it allows people to be silly or to try to show they nonconformity to an ideology.

I have around 300 “friends” on Facebook, a fraction of which I converse with regularly in the Facebook medium, and even fewer I probably see on a regular basis. I could go and delete those I really never talk to, but there is a part of me who wants to keep the option of going to view their profile and see what they’re up to. I don’t think I’m the only one who thinks like that, or things like TMZ wouldn’t exist. What is that about human nature that we like to pry into others lives? Right after the chapter on creating and managing identity in social network profiles, I really wanted a whole sub-chapter about how people look at other’s profiles. Call it “Spying in the Social Network Sphere.”

Foucault & Nakamura: Who’s got power?

I guess the hope of the internet, kind of like what Clay Shirky was getting at in his book, is that the open design of the internet can somehow transcend all barriers and be completely fair in an ideal world. It’s very optimistic and idealic, and I think the Foucault and Nakamura readings this week completely grounded us after reading Shirky. They argue that other side, that the internet is just another tool, and that the hegemony of society doesn’t necessarily go away with the internet.

From what I know about Foucault, for him, everything is about power. Speaking truth to power, who has power, who wants power, etc. He sees power as the core to all relationships. And knowledge and truth exist because of power. Having knowledge is a power over those who do not. Which leads to the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

“It is not the activity of the subject of knowledge that produces a corpus of knowldge, useful or resistant to power; but power-knowledge, the processes and struggles that traverse it and which it is made up, that determines the forms and possible domains of knowledge...” (Foucault)

It’s a dichotomy: Knowledge exists with power. One can’t exist without the other (for Foucault). Those in power control individuals to keep the society regulated and in control.

Power takes the form of discipline with the Panopticon, which to my understanding, represents how people are controlled and managed. The prison and the penitentiary manage people’s behavior, efficiently. In the Panopticon, the power is visible, it is a surveillance system that doesn’t try to hide. Think of the red-light cameras. They all have signs up that tell drivers that they are at an intersection with red-light cameras. The signs are visible reminders of the power that the officials have over drivers. They have that power to fine you for running the light at all times, and because that camera is visible, the power is maintained. The internet doesn’t work outside this concept. There are ways in which every click you make is tracked. And it’s not really secret either, thus acting the same as the red-light cameras, playing the part of that visible watch-dog, happily wagging it’s power tail.

Cybertyping reminds me of remediation to borrow from our previous readings. The internet ‘cybertypes’ people just as in prvious mediums. Minorities are remastered to be different or to at least seem different. This is a similar hegemony to Foucault. Putting people into ‘us vs. them,’ ‘others,’ or ‘haves and have-nots.’ No matter what you want to call the groups, it’s still a result of who has power and who doesn’t, and the power is always based on those-who-have-it’s standard of power.

How Foucault and Nakamura relate to new and emerging technologies, is that technology can be a tool of power and control.

“Power is exercised rather than possessed; it is not the ‘privilege.’ acquired or preserved, of the dominate class, but the overall effect of its strategic position of those who are dominated.” (Foucault)

You might think that power is a numbers game, but Foucault seems to say that it is more a strategy game. Its not just the largest group who holds power, and we can see that in just about any government system. Those in power are of a small portion of the population. The wealthy, the educated, the well connected. Even the systems that call themselves ‘democracies.’ They should be open and free so that theoretically everyone holds power, but look at our system, it’s not a pure democracy, but a representational one. There are steps to ensure that the people do not have complete control. The Electoral College is a prime example. The people cannot directly elect their national leader. The system exists as a kind of barrier, kind of like a Panopticon designed to manage the people. I suppose on the one side you might say that it is a way of maintaining some consistency, or keeping the system stable. Stability is a worry for those designing a government, and if you think about democracy is just one step away from anarchy. Pure democracy could be the equivalent of a ‘pure internet.’ where ideally everything works smoothly without management, and hegemony doesn’t exist. Whether that is truly ever possible, well it doesn’t seem likely to me, but then again all I know is hegemony because I live in the current, and power is unescapable.

Shirky and Group Formation

Over the weekend I went and saw the movie Amelia, directed by Mira Nair and starring Hillary Swank in the title role. The film was alright. The aerial photography was beautiful and everything looks great. The art direction and the costumes all work together to put you in the 30s. But the story itself feels anticlimactic; it kind of coasts along but it never soars. I think it is safe to say that 99.9% of people know what happens to Amelia in the end, so there’s not a whole lot to build up to, but still I think she’s interesting enough that in the hands of a different director and writer this movie could have been a lot better. I felt a little like I did after seeing Valkyrie last year. After that film I wanted to write the producers and tell them, “I know they don’t kill Hitler, so stop trying to convince me your movie is a thriller and supposed to keep me guessing! There’s no guesswork here!”

Alas historical movies continually get made, and it seems that filmmakers like to take the approach that people don’t know their history, so they spell it out, which just makes me feel a little insulted.

Now coincidentally, tonight on the news, there was a short story pointing out the box office success of the film Paranormal Activity. It is the number movie in the country right now, with a total gross so far of about 33 million. The estimated budget was $15,000. It stars a handful of unknown actors. It was written, directed, and edited by one person. The total cast and crew listed on Imdb is about 25. In contrast, Amelia had a high-profile award winning cast and crew, yet made (granted this is only its first opening weekend) 4 million. According to the news program I saw, it had a budget of $100,000 million. It’s got a ways to go before it even breaks even.

There’s a lot of contrasting points that could be made between the films. Paranaormal was shot on a very low budget, Amelia a typical high Hollywood budget. Paranormal was shot in digital, Amelia was shot on 35mm. Paranormal plays off a documentary storytelling style, Amelia is a standard classical Hollywood bio-pic. You could say that the difference between these two movies is a generational gap in how to make a movie. Low budget films are finding ways to distribute themselves cheaper and more easily than ever before now, with greater success than ever.

This relates directly to what Shirky talks about in Here Comes Everybody. In the opening story about the lost cell phone, we see the power of group effort as people rallied behind Evan’s efforts to get his friend’s cell phone back. As people found his site through word of mouth, some marketing, and probably some random findings, they connected and communicated. Group effort is not new, and Shirky recognizes this, he just notes that the modes of how the group forms have changed/are changing. For cult movies, the distribution of the film is usually limited. However a ‘cult following’ develops mostly out of communication, by word-of-mouth. Someone sees the movie, they tell their friends they like it, and pretty soon the movie gets a reputation and it’s still talked about for years to come. Now with social networks, people can self-promote to their followers until the sun comes up, via something like Twitter for instance. Then someone else can RT (retweet) and thus promote them to a new set of followers and the cycle continues...

Shirky explains how group formation and group promotion is easier than ever with the internet. And he seems to have great faith in people to not only form groups but act on them. All this organizing happens outside established institutions. I think the main point of the book is that community can work easier than managerial corporations with these new technologies. There is a downside though. On the one hand, independent films can be promoted easier with fewer pricey advertisements. Bands can put their music up through creative commons or free downloads and thus gain a fan base without ever coming near a record company. People can find other people who share their interests and communicate and collaborate with each other. In the best examples, people collaborate and bring about social change and act out in the world like ARGs or the recent PAC-We.Then again groups can form that are malicious to their members, like the pro-anorexia groups. It seems that it is in their right to have websites under free speech, but to what degree is that ok? I don’t think Shirky really addresses these kind of issues where group formation is harmful to others.

But when it comes to the state of movies at the box office. When a $15,000 independent movie can find itself at a film festival and be seen by Spielberg and thus hit theaters nationwide to make millions and millions of dollars, I have to wonder what the future state of film promotion will be. The amateur film can be made better and easier than ever, and can compare to the high-tech big productions of Hollywood films. (I mean something like the Canon 5D Mark II is visually stunning at a fraction of the price of most film cameras). So maybe even an institution like Hollywood isn’t safe from this social change that is occurring with internet revolution. (yup, i’m starting to think revolution now)

From Habermas’ “Public Sphere” to DeLuca & Peeple’s “Public Screen”

In this shortened version of Habermas’ outlining of public sphere, we get a definition of the concept public sphere as: “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed.” The concept is that in a public sphere, people assemble together as one acting public body, leading to public reason which contrasts to the governing state body. It is essentially organized discussion, creating public consensus which then can in turn influences political action. Habermas also argues that with the historical change from a feudal constitutional society the public sphere was able to come about and as it did, public broadcast media like newspapers played a vital role.

Historically, public sphere is associated with the “coffeehouse discussions” where you see groups assembling for debate and discussion. It was open, disregarded status, and based on rational thought with a goal of reaching consensus. Although on the surface the sphere is understood as open and free to anyone, of course it wasn’t like modern society. The sphere was free to white educated middle class males as far as my understanding goes. But that aside, the public sphere is still where the people have the position to influence action and influence the governing bodies. Other important historical events that you see as the public sphere emerges is the growing idea of a separation of church and state, which arguably only came about after the Reformation and the idea of a person having an individual and direct relationship with God, taking away much of the power of the Church.

The public sphere has and is continually changing. It was once about a physical space that could be occupied, now there are fewer coffeehouse meetings. Media was once just a source of information, but as the capitalistic society grew, the more the media realized it’s value as another capital-making system through advertisement and news-managing. If you follow along the arguments of intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, the broadcast medias [newspapers, news stations] are purely a medium of “manufacturing consent.” They exhibit the news in the interests of their monetary-backbone, the corporations who own them. In our society, the majority of media is controlled by a few companies, and their interests correlate with the products of their medias.

In my past studies, I came across this concept of public sphere through “From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the Lessons of Seattle” (2002) by DeLuca and Peeples, which looks at the transitioning of the concept of public sphere with the onset of new media. They use the common definition of public sphere as an open, public, physical space where public opinion is formed. The transition is that public opinion is formed out of a new, pseudo-physical “public screen.” They talk about how the way information is shared nowadays, that you can’t really distinguish between public and private spheres. The separation between public and private is slimmer because of the mobility of our technology, as you can carry the “screens” with you. This new way of information transfer is based around the inception of new media.

One of the other points to DeLuca and Peeple’s argument, is that events can be staged for the screen, as another way of manufacturing consent, or just drawing attention to something. “Image Events” can be very persuasive, cause the public to empathize with an event, or make them hardened against a subject (like violence). Image events exist to ask the public to watch and to see their point of view. And the audience isn’t just an objective public observer, but they are immersed in the images and thus will form an opinion of the situation. DeLuca and Peeples talk about the 1999 WTO protest and riots in Seattle in their article. The media predominantly showed images of violence instead of debate and delegation, which does grab the attention of the viewers, so whether that’s good or bad, it is successful in getting viewership. Not as much information was given to the public as the event happened so any kind of hope for public consensus is lost.

The contributions of new media to the public sphere are varied. For one thing, “screens” are widely available, and can lead to instantaneous social action. Social movement can happen much more rapidly than ever, and be more widespread. There is also some difficulty in getting social action to spread, like for instance when the topic of action is against established structures which people are hesitant to change. New media doesn’t work face-to-face, it does not necessarily occupy a physical space like the public sphere did. With the screen you don’t have to necessarily plan or produce flyers or anything tangible. There are less limits on who can be a member of the public screen - basically anyone with a screen. And anyone can be both a sender and a receiver. This can be seen in the alternate reality game “World Without Oil" where the spectators were also producers.

Do these differences lead to more consensus? Hard to say. The principles of how people come to a consensus don’t necessarily change with new media, however it does lead to more shared information, and increased availability of information. When working at it’s full potential, the screen works like the media used to work, as an information sharing medium. There is still a danger that the screens can become what old forms of broadcast media have, and there can still be bias in the information, and still some consent manufacturing. The ability to be more free though, is still there, and that is a positive difference.