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.