In "You Are Not A Gadget" by Jaron Lanier, he criticizes modern Internet landmarks, such as Google and Wikipedia, along with Web 2.0, to reach his conclusion with the growth of technology, we are in turn losing our humanity. In the Preface, Lanier says that because we are in the twenty-first century it is likely his book is being read by nonpersons, his words taken out of context and being misinterpreted. He concludes with, "And yet it is you, the person, the rarity among my readers, I hope to reach." It is clear from the start Lanier is interested in connecting to human emotions, because in his mind, this is something technology can not and should not replace.
In Chapter one, Lanier states that the most important thing to note about technology is the effect it has on people. As a user of digital technology, such as blogging, Twitter or Facebook, we are accepting in a corner of our minds that to another person we are conceived as a program, drifting among the crowds that flood the digital landscape. Lanier asks, "What is a person?" As if it can be defined by a software program, however he states that there is no formula for a person, for a person is leap of faith. Lanier talks about the development of the web in the 1990s and its simplicity. There was an open flow of information, people could create their own websites and anyone could access it, nothing was regulated yet. He reverts back to the creation of MIDI, the software which made musical notes into a rigid structure. However, it raises the question, if music can be reduced to a rigid structure, then can people become restricted to what can be represented by a computer? The new web 2.0 asks people to define themselves. It allows for anonymity therefore reducing our ability to connect with one another and requires us to describe ourselves in a limited fashion. Lanier suggests putting more effort into your personal voice and expressing yourself through a website. He encourages "being a person instead of a source of fragments to be exploited by others." Do not become addicted to digital creative materials, utilize what is tangible and mysterious, such as a love for a musical instrument.
In Chapter two Lanier emphasizes the importance of humans and our necessary role in the survival of technology. Lanier talks about "levels of description," which he argues that soon the Internet will function as a higher level of description than our brain, essentially making our brains obsolete. He argues automated computer functions, such as an automated indentation in Microsoft Word, provide proof of an assumption that the computer is evolving into a life-form that can understand people better than we understand ourselves. However, he thinks this is unnecessary because often people don't want their paper formatted that way and then we waste more time changing it back. Lanier says the point of virtual reality and digital technology was to enhance the world, making it more creative and exciting, not to provide an outlet for people to escape from reality or create a new virtual identity. Lanier returns to his point that technology changes people with the discussion of the "circle of empathy." Our circle of empathy determines the things we care about and what we think doesn't deserve empathy. The point of this is to prove that no relationship can be represented in a digital database because we never fully understand what goes on between us and others, as each person's circle of empathy is different.
Chapter three talks about the Internet becoming a platform for abuse and how it has mashed society up into a crowd and lost sight of individuality. One point Lanier makes is that the web creates large networks of people, however by themselves a network is meaningless, the people being networked are all that matter. It is important for people not to lose sight in the fact that they are necessary in the digital game. In this time it's important to not glorify the "wisdom of crowds." For example, Wikipedia uses a collection of ideas, however suppresses the voice of the individual. Anonymity on the web has also created a space for "trolls." A troll is a an anonymous person who is abusive online. These negative comments and harassment of people in the Internet have let to suicides and tragedies. Lanier argues that this negative commenting and behavior are not random incidents but have become the status quo of the online world.
Throughout the first part of the book Lanier is constantly reminding his reader that technology will not understand complex humans needs and emotions. For example in chapter three he references Facebook and its inability to understand the concept of a friendship. Lanier encourages his reader to make sure that when we reduce ourselves to a statistic or a model, we are not reducing the importance of life itself. We have to maintain our personhood.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
You Are Not A Gadget (Lanier) Part 2, Chapters 6-8
Chapter 6: The Lords of the Clouds Renounce Free Will in Order to Become Infinitely Lucky
In this chapter, Lanier discusses the fallacious reasoning of "cybernetic totalism," which the blog Transfer Protocol identifies as an "idolization of technology to the point where our relationship with the technology itself becomes the only measure of humanity." Janier links cybernetic totalism to "out-of-control financial instruments" as well as the "fates of musicians" (Janier 94) due to the free music internet movement.
Regional Fates
China's rise to wealth has a lot to do with their concentration on "cheap high-quality labor," (94) and Lanier predicts that sometimes in the next twenty years or so, a huge number of jobs in China and other places using similar strategies will be "made obsolete by advances in cheap robotics" (94). This would affect hundreds of millions of people as far as jobs go. On the other hand, India's economy began thriving at the same time as China's, although with a different model: they achieve most of their wealth through "call centers, software development, computer animation and outsourced administrative services" (95).
Question: (in text) "If waves of technological change bring new kind of employment with them, what will it be like?" (94) Who would be affected positively and negatively?
Computationally Enhanced Corruption
Lanier explains how "cataclysmic financial management" (96) disasters have occurred as a result of big computer networks and what he refers to as the "cloud." The financial disasters of 2008 (i.e. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) were "significantly cloud based," according to Lanier. He claims that the rise of "computer-assisted hedge funds" has "turned capitalism into a search engine" (96). Lanier believes that because of these things, capitalism has been ushered into a new phase which is not working.
The Cloudy Edge Between Self-Delusion and Corruption
Again, the 2008 American financial crisis spurred by a "mortgage meldown" was a case of "too many people believing in the cloud too much" (97).
The Big 'N'
Individual "human creativity and understanding" are "treated as worthless in this system, so people are driven to trust in the crowd, or "the big N" (98) or the "algorithms that remove risks of creativity" (99).
Chapter 7: The Prospects for Humanistic Cloud Economics
This section provides alternatives to currently indoctrinated ideas about digital economics.
The Digital Economy: First Thought, Best Thought
Question: (in text) "Are there any alternatives/options that exist apart from the opposing poles of old media and new culture?" (100)
Question: (in text): "Is there any way to bring money and capitalism into an era of technological abundance without impoverishing almost everyone?" (100)
In response to this question, Lanier provides an idea originated by Ted Nelson, who invented the digital media link. Nelson's idea is that we should keep only one copy of each "cultural expression" and "pay the author...a small, affordable amount whenever it is accessed". In other words, people would be able to post to their blogs and then make a small bit of money every time someone clicked through to your site or interacted with its content. Lanier supports this idea, asserting that it would reward "individuals instead of cloud owners." He believes that most people would support a system in which "bits have value instead of being free" in order to support individual artists. He champions the idea, claiming that it would "celebrate personhood... because personal expression would be valued" (101.)
Pick Your Poison
Question: (in text) With the system suggested above, wouldn't the government have to be closely involved in order to enforce laws to compensate people? Would it be intrusive and would it lead to a loss of liberty? (102)
Again, Lanier emphasizes that with Nelson's system, "creative expression could...become the most valuable resource in a future world of material abundance" (103).
Putting a monetary value, albeit a small one, on these "bits" would indeed put a greater value on them, but would people really want to pay for it when we are so used to having access for free?
It Isn't Too Late
Question: (in text) "How could a transition from open copying to paid access work?"
Lanier argues that governmental solutions to these problems would be necessary, and that people would have to "all agree in order for something to have monetary value" (105). It's true: if a service that was formerly free was suddenly for pay, most people probably wouldn't pay for it, unless it was of an increased value, such as Nelson's system would presumably provide.
If most people view this as fair, then it will happen, according to Lanier. Any economic idea can be undermined or supported by "perceptions of fairness and social norms," so everyone must be in a agreement that it is "worth paying for one another's elevated cultural and creative expressions." Lanier insists that the system for payment must be "universal" and "simple" (105) because it would be too much for someone to keep plugging in their credit card number to every site they visit, much less dangerous.
The Transition
One idea Lanier has for the transition to this new system is for people to stop paying a monthly fee to their internet service provider, and to instead sign up for this new "social contract in which you pay for bits" (106). Lanier argues that people are entrepreneurial at heart and "would like to see the chance to try to make money from their bits" (107).
Chapter 8: Three Possible Future Directions
This section identifies 3 projects of Lanier's in order to "correct some of the problems described in Chapter 4." The first two ideas, "telegigging and songles" have to do with issues concerning the "future of paid cultural expression." The third idea, "formal financial expression," is very dense and has to do with an approach to keeping "the hive from ruining finance" (108), the "hive" being the tendency to gravitate toward whatever is the easiest place to find content, but not necessarily the best content.
Telegigging
This is basically live performance on the internet by artists. Lanier argues in favor of it because artists wouldn't have to travel, and the practice would be immune to problems presented by online music sharing which has crippled music labels and music stores alike.
Songles
Lanier identifies these as "dongles for a song," dongles being defined as small pieces "of hardware that you plug into a computer to run a piece of commercial software" (109). These objects could be coffee mugs, bracelets, rings, whatever. Lanier says that songles would make hardware such as iPods unneeded because people would be paying for content rather than hardware.
Lanier lists the pluses of songles, which would make the music business "more romantic" (110), lower the cost of promotion because songles would come in limited editions based on quality. He claims they would also "broaden channels by which music is sold" and raise the margin for "high-prestige but low-volume music" (111) such as opera and fine jazz through scarce limited editions.
Formal Financial Expression
This section describes problems of who Lanier refers to as the "lords of the clouds, not the peasants" (111). It has to do with the way monetary transactions are handled via the internet. One technique Lanier suggests is one that uses Artificial Intelligence to "create formal versions of certain complicated or innovative contracts that define financial instruments" (113).
You Are Not a Gadget Part 2
Chapter 4: Digital Peasant Chic
-Ruining an Appointment with Destiny
This chapter starts out with the notion that once a new, wide spread technology is introduced into a culture, that jobs and opportunities are created and the population generally sees an increase in social status. However, once the internet started to gain momentum in the early 2000's, the gap between the rich and poor grew wider, and the middle class in America shrank. Historically, in a situation like this, Marxism and Maoism takes hold of the masses that whose lives were not improved by the new technology, and a revolution occurs. However, the internet is unique because it is still applicable to most of the population, and it provides a free forum for the outraged to voice their opinions within the blogosphere. In essence, it imitates progress for all while the middle class remains stagnant in the wake of the rich getting richer.
-Crashing Down Maslow's Pyramid
The Maslow Pyramid is a hierarchy of needs that individuals must acquire, but in a certain order. Once the baser needs are met, then they are motivated to get higher, albeit non-essential things. Base needs include food and shelter, while higher needs are social status and material wealth. In a capitalist society, the working class is lower on the social scale than the aristocrats and artisans, while in a Maoist society, the workers are revered for their sacrifice, so the pyramid looks different in China as opposed to America. For some reason, the internet has also taken the Maoist approach to the hierarchy, making original content and ideas undesirable and unprofitable. The most popular websites on the web are not generators of content, but rather collectors of content from other places. As Lanier puts it, "a blog of blogs is more exalted than a mere blog", because it is not about which place has the original content, but which place puts in the work (or has users that do the work) to get the most content (79). Blogs reflect this theory every time that they link to an outside source or embed pictures and videos. The epitome of this are the sites like Digg and Reddit that almost exclusively host links to other sites with very little user content.
-Morality Needs Technology If It's To Do Any Good/Technological Change is Stressful
Technology is undisputedly the quickest and most permanent way to change the largest amount of people's lives for the better, in the opinion of Lanier. He references how machine driven agriculture opened an avenue out of the slave driven economy of the southern US, but in modern times it is just as likely for technology to make human jobs obsolete with robotics as it is to open up new jobs.
-The Devaluation of Everything
In the case of the internet, the middle class shrank while the extremes grew, in spite of the immense human presence. What this means is that the human element on the internet was devalued; making money on the internet was near-impossible if you weren't big enough to advertise whatever it was you're doing.
- The Only Product That Will Maintain Its Value After The Revolution/Accelerating a Vacuum
Advertising is generally considered the only way to make money on the internet. Those who create and add content to the web have essentially signed a contract saying that they will not be making any money, at least not without the help of advertisers. The hive mind of the internet decided that it is a free space for the sharing of ideas, and not for profit as far as the creators and artists are concerned. The examples of people going on to be rich and famous are few, and Lanier thinks that this is only because the world is still in transition from the old media to the new, where Diablo Cody can be noticed on the internet and given a book deal, and eventually the movie "Juno". In the future, the move from internet to book deal will be essentially worthless as electronic readers become more dominant, finally completing the transition from old to new. In the same way, movies will be devalued as going to the theater and buying physical discs slows down in favor of torrenting or online streaming. Lanier predicts that making the jump from the internet to old media to gain fame and fortune won't be viable in the future.
-Blaming Our Victims
The failing newspaper industry is often blamed on the newspapers themselves, but Lanier doesn't understand how the same bloggers who say 'I told you so' don't have a solution for what the papers should have done to maintain themselves in the transition. Because of their inability to deal with changing media, one blogger, Jon Talton, blames the lack of mainstream media presence for allowing the US to invade Iraq without effective questioning. With the absence of 'real' journalism, the Bush administration only had to answer to a choir of bloggers who essentially negated each other's voices with the endless back and forth that the internet forum provides. Because the internet can hold anyone's opinions as loud as the rest the professional work taking a back seat to the mob voice.
-Peasants and Lords of the Clouds
In this section, Lanier examines what constitutes fame and success on the Youtube level of entertainment. In a world where a five second clip of kittens can get more hits than a professionally done short film, why is someone paying for an editor/director? Quality in the new media is replaced by what the hive mind of the internet likes at the time of posting, so there is no need to hire anyone to work on videos, especially since even the clip of kittens isn't making money for the uploader.
Chapter 5: The City is Built to Music
-How Long is Too Long to Wait?
This chapter is devoted to music online, which was the first industry to take a hit from the new rules of the internet with the Napster incident. The problem is that the virtual world that was created online was very much un-capitalistic, and when that clashes with the real world that is very much for profit, things change on both sides. The music industry changed forever so that it couldn’t depend on record sales for income anymore. But the internet also changed, and Lanier believes that it still changing into a form of slum, and the points he makes are valid. In reality, slums are filled with more advertising than wealthier areas, there can be a mob rule mentality where state laws are invalid, and vigilantism, all of which is found online. Advertising as the sole source of profit online is rampant, the hive mind dictates almost every action that occurs, and the site "4chan" has a reputation for attacking other sites that break the unwritten rules of the internet. The internet is still trying to find its role in the real world.
-Dreams Still Die Hard/ The Search
The internet has proven profitable for online retailers such as Amazon, and convenient for the consumers, but the artist has not had any boost in profits or accessibility. The only way they can make any profit from the current system is if the consumers see their exposure on retailer sites and are encouraged to see them in concert and buy merchandise there. Currently, that is proving to be rare, and it especially doesn't work for filmmakers and artists. Bigger name artists, like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, have released albums for free in the new market, but they can because they already have a large fan base that is going to see them in concert anyway. Up and coming bands can find almost no profit in the new system of music sharing, so starting a musical career on the internet is almost limiting yourself to staying on the internet.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Delete Part II
Chapter 4: Of Power and Time—Consequences of the Demise of Forgetting
Chapter 4 of Mayer-Schonberger’s work delves into the consequences of the demise of forgetting. In the pre-technological age, forgetting was the norm, while remembering was the exception. The change we seen over the past few decades has both positives and negatives. On the positive end, Mayer-Schonberger mentions comprehensive digital medical files, accountability in health and hygiene audits, and eBay’s transactional reputation rating. However, he notes that each of these positives come with drawbacks or misconceptions. For instance, the eBay reputation rating proved to be inaccurate as buyers and sellers would only rate each other positively so the other person would reciprocate. In essence, Mayer-Schonberger concludes that comprehensive digital memory fails to realize all its envisioned benefits (96).
The bulk of the chapter breaks down a world without forgetting. Mayer-Schonberger breaks it down to two terms that characterize what is at stake in this world: power and time. Part of the power aspect involves people formerly being able to control what information gets out about you. At the very worst, Mayer-Schonberger describes how people used to be able to remove themselves from their current residence or friends circle if negative information gets too overwhelming. He coins this concept “information bankruptcy” (99). With digital information, filing information bankruptcy becomes almost impossible. Mayer-Schonberger postulates that digital information “deepens the already existing chasm between the information rich and the information poor, empowering the former and to the detriment of the latter” (127). He cites three features of digital memory that make this possible: accessibility, durability, and comprehensiveness.
One of the interesting points raised was the concept of “living with a historical record.” Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that people will have to become “much more careful how they talk, how they interact, what they offer” of themselves. He describes that the way to avoid exposure is to not criticize, which as we discussed in class, seems next to impossible.
Mayer-Schonberger refers back to the previous story’s of Stacy and Andrew to discuss two types of Bentham’s panopticon (which, if you’re not familiar, is summed up nicely here). Stacy’s story displays an example of the spatial version of Bentham’s panopticon, “in which she does not know who watches her but must assume she is watched by everybody. On the other hand, Andrew’s story shows an even more distressful temporal pantopticon which is a fear of being looked at in the future by people.
In describing the time implication of digital memory, Mayer-Schonberger expands on the idea of how more comprehensive digital memory alters our judgment and our capacity to act in time. He describes how “it denies us humans the chance to evolve, develop, and learn, leaving us helplessly oscillating between two equally trouble options: a permanent past and an ignorant present.” He references how George Orwell’s novel 1984 warned of a central authority being able to alter history, and in our technological day and age, everyone now has the power to do so. Lastly, Mayer-Schonberger talks about the problem with context digital memory presents. He argues that snapshots or random facts can distort one’s overall perception of a person or even that moment in time.
Chapter 4 of Mayer-Schonberger’s work delves into the consequences of the demise of forgetting. In the pre-technological age, forgetting was the norm, while remembering was the exception. The change we seen over the past few decades has both positives and negatives. On the positive end, Mayer-Schonberger mentions comprehensive digital medical files, accountability in health and hygiene audits, and eBay’s transactional reputation rating. However, he notes that each of these positives come with drawbacks or misconceptions. For instance, the eBay reputation rating proved to be inaccurate as buyers and sellers would only rate each other positively so the other person would reciprocate. In essence, Mayer-Schonberger concludes that comprehensive digital memory fails to realize all its envisioned benefits (96).
The bulk of the chapter breaks down a world without forgetting. Mayer-Schonberger breaks it down to two terms that characterize what is at stake in this world: power and time. Part of the power aspect involves people formerly being able to control what information gets out about you. At the very worst, Mayer-Schonberger describes how people used to be able to remove themselves from their current residence or friends circle if negative information gets too overwhelming. He coins this concept “information bankruptcy” (99). With digital information, filing information bankruptcy becomes almost impossible. Mayer-Schonberger postulates that digital information “deepens the already existing chasm between the information rich and the information poor, empowering the former and to the detriment of the latter” (127). He cites three features of digital memory that make this possible: accessibility, durability, and comprehensiveness.
One of the interesting points raised was the concept of “living with a historical record.” Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that people will have to become “much more careful how they talk, how they interact, what they offer” of themselves. He describes that the way to avoid exposure is to not criticize, which as we discussed in class, seems next to impossible.
Mayer-Schonberger refers back to the previous story’s of Stacy and Andrew to discuss two types of Bentham’s panopticon (which, if you’re not familiar, is summed up nicely here). Stacy’s story displays an example of the spatial version of Bentham’s panopticon, “in which she does not know who watches her but must assume she is watched by everybody. On the other hand, Andrew’s story shows an even more distressful temporal pantopticon which is a fear of being looked at in the future by people.
In describing the time implication of digital memory, Mayer-Schonberger expands on the idea of how more comprehensive digital memory alters our judgment and our capacity to act in time. He describes how “it denies us humans the chance to evolve, develop, and learn, leaving us helplessly oscillating between two equally trouble options: a permanent past and an ignorant present.” He references how George Orwell’s novel 1984 warned of a central authority being able to alter history, and in our technological day and age, everyone now has the power to do so. Lastly, Mayer-Schonberger talks about the problem with context digital memory presents. He argues that snapshots or random facts can distort one’s overall perception of a person or even that moment in time.
Delete Part II
Chapter 5: Potential Responses
In this chapter, Mayer-Schonberger discusses six possible responses designed to diminish the challenges given to us by digital memory. They include digital abstinence, information privacy rights, digital privacy rights infrastructure, cognitive adjustment, information ecology, and perfect contextualization.
Mayer-Schonberger mentions that two of the six responses have been implemented enough to produce qualitative data, but the remaining four must be tested in order to be recognized as viable solutions to thwart the effects of digital memory upkeep.
1. Digital Abstinence
Mayer-Schonberger argues that being more conscious of the personal information we publish on the web is one of the key steps to preventing an “enduring digital memory.” He uses the example of Stacy Snyder and Andrew Feldmar to emphasize the point that abstaining from publishing harmful information will protect your digital identity.
2. Information Privacy Rights
For this response, Mayer-Schonberger illustrates how a list of personal rights can protect an individual’s information online and secure their digital space. “In its most basic form, information privacy rights give individuals a right to choose whether or not to share information. If somebody obtains personal information by snooping on others without their consent, [they] would violate the law and be subject to punishment”(135).
Mayer-Schonberger goes on to say that information privacy rights have two clear advantages over digital abstinence. First, individuals would be have the support of a legal system to control and monitor their information. And second, limitation rules ensure that “information is not being reused and shared except with individual consent”(138).
3. Digital Privacy Rights Infrastructure
Mayer-Schonberger points out that it’s not just individuals who must exercise control over digital memory, but also copyright protection programs such as DRM. He states, “ the principle of what is often called digital rights management (DRM) is simple: information—in the context of copyright, these are music, movies, games, digital books, but in the context of forgetting, this could be any personal information..”(144).
4. Cognitive Adjustment
For this response, Mayer-Schonberger suggests that it is possible for humans to develop cognitive adjustments to deal with digital remembering. Instead of changing the interface of digital memory, he states that “the necessary change takes place in our minds”(155).
5. Information Ecology
By viewing information in an ecological perspective, we can filter what is and what is no longer purposeful information. Mayer-Schonberger suggests that when information is no longer needed, it should be discarded. However, we encounter several problems with this response from politics and personal records.
6. Perfect (full) Contextualization
“What if digital memory does not comprise too much information, but too little?” Mayer-Schonberger illustrates how perfect contextualization acts as an extension of cognitive adjustment. The idea is simple, comprehensive information is available to everyone. He states, “to achieve perfect contextualization we would need a technological infrastructure that collect, stores, and retrieves information about our lives much more comprehensively than exists today”(164).
In this chapter, Mayer-Schonberger discusses six possible responses designed to diminish the challenges given to us by digital memory. They include digital abstinence, information privacy rights, digital privacy rights infrastructure, cognitive adjustment, information ecology, and perfect contextualization.
Mayer-Schonberger mentions that two of the six responses have been implemented enough to produce qualitative data, but the remaining four must be tested in order to be recognized as viable solutions to thwart the effects of digital memory upkeep.
1. Digital Abstinence
Mayer-Schonberger argues that being more conscious of the personal information we publish on the web is one of the key steps to preventing an “enduring digital memory.” He uses the example of Stacy Snyder and Andrew Feldmar to emphasize the point that abstaining from publishing harmful information will protect your digital identity.
2. Information Privacy Rights
For this response, Mayer-Schonberger illustrates how a list of personal rights can protect an individual’s information online and secure their digital space. “In its most basic form, information privacy rights give individuals a right to choose whether or not to share information. If somebody obtains personal information by snooping on others without their consent, [they] would violate the law and be subject to punishment”(135).
Mayer-Schonberger goes on to say that information privacy rights have two clear advantages over digital abstinence. First, individuals would be have the support of a legal system to control and monitor their information. And second, limitation rules ensure that “information is not being reused and shared except with individual consent”(138).
3. Digital Privacy Rights Infrastructure
Mayer-Schonberger points out that it’s not just individuals who must exercise control over digital memory, but also copyright protection programs such as DRM. He states, “ the principle of what is often called digital rights management (DRM) is simple: information—in the context of copyright, these are music, movies, games, digital books, but in the context of forgetting, this could be any personal information..”(144).
4. Cognitive Adjustment
For this response, Mayer-Schonberger suggests that it is possible for humans to develop cognitive adjustments to deal with digital remembering. Instead of changing the interface of digital memory, he states that “the necessary change takes place in our minds”(155).
5. Information Ecology
By viewing information in an ecological perspective, we can filter what is and what is no longer purposeful information. Mayer-Schonberger suggests that when information is no longer needed, it should be discarded. However, we encounter several problems with this response from politics and personal records.
6. Perfect (full) Contextualization
“What if digital memory does not comprise too much information, but too little?” Mayer-Schonberger illustrates how perfect contextualization acts as an extension of cognitive adjustment. The idea is simple, comprehensive information is available to everyone. He states, “to achieve perfect contextualization we would need a technological infrastructure that collect, stores, and retrieves information about our lives much more comprehensively than exists today”(164).
Delete: Part II
Chapter 6: Reintroducing Forgetting
In chapter 6, Mayer-Schonberger explores the reasons why “digital memory” is responsible for how we keep and maintain information. He argues that because technology has allowed us to store mass amounts of information, remembering information is no longer a conscious act. Instead, it is easily accessible over the internet, which has become a steadily growing informational bank.
To alleviate this problem, he suggests that we adopt the virtue of “digital forgetting,” which will allow us to downsize informational overload on the web and ensure that personal data is kept safe and relevant. Furthermore, having the ability to forget certain digital information bits we consume might also help in the way we observe present information. If we rely on remembering irrelevant information, then there is less of a chance that we will respond rationally with new (important) information.
Mayer-Schonberger moves on to suggest that we must find “a combination of raised human and societal awareness, technical tools, and supporting legislation,” in order to curb our resilient attitude toward informational upkeep. One way to do this, he suggests, is through expiration dates tagged to digital information. He goes on to explain that the implementation of such a tool is easily conceivable; “Users, when saving a document they have created, would have to select an expiration date in addition to the document's name and location on their hard disk” (171). By doing this, digital information will have a predetermined life-span that when completed, will delete itself from the server or disk.
Q: If we can store all of digital information successfully, why bother deleting it?
Mayer-Schonberger moves on to confront the issues facing giant informational processors. Large companies and online search engines are affected by loads of data that must be filtered in order to find the right information. The more data they create, the harder it is to find the correct information. He discusses Google and how they use complex algorithms to dissect the web's information. However, these algorithms can lead to misleading results that can be corrected with the proper technical tools. One of the ways he suggests we solve the data-pile up is again, through expiration tags. He states, “With an expiration date in place, information that has shed its value could be weeded out of digital memory, leaving processors with a significantly improved information base to use. And because primarily users, not processors, set expiration dates, such a potential increase in information quality may cost processors little if any money.” (175).
He concludes the chapter by discussing the ways in which we can commit to expiration dates for our digital information, and extends his analysis by including the hurdles we would have to overcome in order to properly execute this new habit. However, he does explain that expiration dates alone will not solve our informational overload. “As is obvious, expiration dates are not a one-size-fits-all solution. A whole range of options are conceivable, from a bare bones implementation of the core idea to more complex and far-reaching versions. Different implementations may vary widely, and no version is inherently better than the others. Which version a society selects depends not just on the type and context of information, but also on society's preferences and values, as well as the institutions at its disposal to enforce it” (188-9).
Q: What are some other alternatives we can think of that could work?
In chapter 6, Mayer-Schonberger explores the reasons why “digital memory” is responsible for how we keep and maintain information. He argues that because technology has allowed us to store mass amounts of information, remembering information is no longer a conscious act. Instead, it is easily accessible over the internet, which has become a steadily growing informational bank.
To alleviate this problem, he suggests that we adopt the virtue of “digital forgetting,” which will allow us to downsize informational overload on the web and ensure that personal data is kept safe and relevant. Furthermore, having the ability to forget certain digital information bits we consume might also help in the way we observe present information. If we rely on remembering irrelevant information, then there is less of a chance that we will respond rationally with new (important) information.
Mayer-Schonberger moves on to suggest that we must find “a combination of raised human and societal awareness, technical tools, and supporting legislation,” in order to curb our resilient attitude toward informational upkeep. One way to do this, he suggests, is through expiration dates tagged to digital information. He goes on to explain that the implementation of such a tool is easily conceivable; “Users, when saving a document they have created, would have to select an expiration date in addition to the document's name and location on their hard disk” (171). By doing this, digital information will have a predetermined life-span that when completed, will delete itself from the server or disk.
Q: If we can store all of digital information successfully, why bother deleting it?
Mayer-Schonberger moves on to confront the issues facing giant informational processors. Large companies and online search engines are affected by loads of data that must be filtered in order to find the right information. The more data they create, the harder it is to find the correct information. He discusses Google and how they use complex algorithms to dissect the web's information. However, these algorithms can lead to misleading results that can be corrected with the proper technical tools. One of the ways he suggests we solve the data-pile up is again, through expiration tags. He states, “With an expiration date in place, information that has shed its value could be weeded out of digital memory, leaving processors with a significantly improved information base to use. And because primarily users, not processors, set expiration dates, such a potential increase in information quality may cost processors little if any money.” (175).
He concludes the chapter by discussing the ways in which we can commit to expiration dates for our digital information, and extends his analysis by including the hurdles we would have to overcome in order to properly execute this new habit. However, he does explain that expiration dates alone will not solve our informational overload. “As is obvious, expiration dates are not a one-size-fits-all solution. A whole range of options are conceivable, from a bare bones implementation of the core idea to more complex and far-reaching versions. Different implementations may vary widely, and no version is inherently better than the others. Which version a society selects depends not just on the type and context of information, but also on society's preferences and values, as well as the institutions at its disposal to enforce it” (188-9).
Q: What are some other alternatives we can think of that could work?
Monday, November 15, 2010
Delete: Part 1
Chapter 1: Failing to Forget the “Drunken Pirate”
In Chapter 1, Mayer-Schonberger introduces the binary of remembering and forgetting through the story of Stacy Snyder. Snyder was a well-qualified, single mother who lost her teaching career because of a questionable photo of her that surfaced online. Mayer uses Snyder's story, and many others, to illustrate how the sophistication of technology has made it harder to forget than to remember. This fundamental shift of consciousness is dangerous to our society and even contrary to our human condition. While these technologies based on "remembering" have brought us revolutions in medicine and science, they can jeopardize our privacy and safety.
By championing the value of forgetting and warning about the dangers of "perfect memory", Mayer wants us to "remember how to forget in the digital age."
Chapter 2: Remembering and Forgetting
In Chapter 2, Mayer-Schonberger gives his readers a background of memory. He begins with explaining the biological process of remembering. There are two types of memories: declarative, which involves a conscious act of remembering something like an event or idea, and procedural, which involves remembering something through repetition. These memories are opposed to the act of forgetting. How we forget is a debate among scientists. Some believe forgetting is mechanistic, and we literally lose a link to a memory. Others believe that our forgetting and remembering is a dynamic process, and our brain chooses what we remember according to our preferences.
The rest of Chapter 2 is devoted to the development of ways humans remember things. Back in primitive times, language was developed as a way to explain ideas or memories to others. Centuries later, language was still being used as a tool for memory through the oral passing-down of epics. However, although the main ideas are usually conveyed and remembered through language, details often get forgotten or misconstrued, so that the story ends up not entirely true to the original.
The language problem was solved by the development of external memory. Painting was the first way of recording experiences. Then came script and the writing down of memories. For a long time, however, obtaining writing materials like paper was very expensive. Only rich and powerful people like Ptolemy could keep a library (the first attempt at perfect memory). Libraries later became public, but it was still expensive and time-consuming for scribes to write out entire books. In 1450, Gutenberg created the printing press, which made making copies of books/memories much easier. Martin Luther helped the mass-production of external memory by translating the Bible into the German vernacular. Still, buying a book was expensive for the common person. Finally with the advent of the newspaper, penny press, and yellow-back books, external memories were available for the general, middle-class public. Having newspapers created a common memory in society, and changed their relation to time.
More currently, cameras, video cameras, and audio-recording devices have made it simpler to record memories. However, with a higher number of recorded memories comes the difficulty of retrieving and organizing them. Mayer-Schonberger ends the chapter saying, “Until recently, the fact that remembering has always been at least a little bit harder than forgetting helped us humans avoide the fundamental question of whether we would like to remember everything forever if we could. Not anymore.”
Chapter 3: The Demise of Forgetting
Mayer-Schonberger presents the idea in chapter three, “The Demise of Forgetting,” that we have entered an age where everything is recorded. He gives the example of Gordon Bell, who has compiled all records of his life – from snapshots taken every 30 seconds from a device hanging from his neck to every email he has ever sent – into a “gigantic external memory of his life” (51). Through this example, Mayer-Schonberger explains the shift from analog to digital form, and the vast improvements it has brought to the storage of information. He therefore comes to the thesis of this chapter: “remembering has become the norm, and forgetting the exception” (52). The main drivers of this shift, as explained in detail throughout the chapter, are digitization, cheap storage, easy retrieval, and global reach.
The development of digital media sparked a revolution in technology. Analog readers were faulty in that they would accrue an amount of “noise” so that each subsequent copy would accumulate more “noise” and make a copy of a copy very easy to detect. Perfect copies did not exist in analog, therefore making the original of significant value. Digital copies, however, were rendered perfect. There was no discernable difference between copies, or even the breakdown that occurred from too much use with analog media. This reduced the value of originals greatly, so that sharing became very popular. Also, digitization streamlined the use of different media. Sound, video, text, and photos could all be viewed on the same digital device which is more efficient than having separate devices for each medium. Digitization also protects the information, as unless the physical storage is destroyed, the information will not decay the way that analog forms would. Sharing is a big part of digitization, and using streamlined devices enables users to combine media to create new forms. Users can write over the original product and create new works to share with others.
Digitization has been successful largely because of its availability. Technology has advanced so quickly that “by the time one has filled up her hard disk, a newer one is available with double or triple the amount of storage capacity” (65). The rate of increase is only slowed by “switching costs,” which occur when a newer piece of technology is not backward compatible, such as upgrading a VHS to a DVD player. Newer technology tries to combat this by working with older technology, as the Blue Ray player works with both Blue Ray disks and DVDs. This is not true, however, of hard drives, since as long as the information can be accessed, users do not care about the internal “plumbing” of the device. Thus, the wide availability and inexpensive means of storage allows everything to be stored cheaply. Mayer-Schonberger explains that it is more cost efficient to simply allow all the files to be stored automatically than to routinely go through and eliminate ones that are not used. It is also helpful to have a back-up system, even if the evidence is not always desirable. The author references the vast availability of storage on the web through sites like Hotmail, Yahoo!, and Google.
With the vast amounts of data we can now save and peruse as we please, we need a way to retrieve our information. The ability to search for information within among data increases the value of the information (73). Easy retrieval, however, didn’t used to be so easy, and we came a long way from the first manuscripts to the wonders of Google. Mayer-Schonberger recounts the evolution of organization, from filing to indexes. Other forms of media such as photography or videos little or no such indexing – the user must manually flip through images or fast-forward through a VHS tape to find what he is looking for. Even when computers were first developed, programmers followed a very cataloguing style of organizing, similar to books. “[T]he humans designing the first generations of digital systems were caught up in real-world metaphors of information organization” (75). Ted Codd formulated the more advanced form we know today with the concept of “relational databases” that stored information like a grid, allowing more flexible search terms. The next step in search revolution came with “full-text indexing” that allowed chunks of text to be searched within a document or file, allowing for more than just the tags associated with a file to show up. The author’s only argument against Easy Retrieval is that these searches remove the files from context. Instead of browsing a text and picking up relevant background information on the way, the user only receives a snapshot of the result. I think this is a weak argument against such a valuable social tool.
None of this information could be as widespread and successful without Global Reach. The Internet afforded the possibility of connecting users in their homes to vast stores of knowledge: held together through the digitization process, cheap storage, and easy retrieval. As technology advances, connection speed has gone up and cost down, thus allowing for the globalization of the Internet. Three things have facilitated the development: packet-switched structure of the Internet, fiber optic cable for broadband connections, and facilitating retrofitting existing infrastructure to meet demand without physically laying new cable (80-81). The widespread availability of the Internet allows for sharing of information between users, although Mayer-Schonberger warns that once information is shared, the user no longer has control over it. He argues that it is difficult to keep information about a user private on the Internet, and that security is never truly safe. However, he does acknowledge that it is now almost impossible to exist “offline” and that we must embrace the digital age with caution.
In Chapter 1, Mayer-Schonberger introduces the binary of remembering and forgetting through the story of Stacy Snyder. Snyder was a well-qualified, single mother who lost her teaching career because of a questionable photo of her that surfaced online. Mayer uses Snyder's story, and many others, to illustrate how the sophistication of technology has made it harder to forget than to remember. This fundamental shift of consciousness is dangerous to our society and even contrary to our human condition. While these technologies based on "remembering" have brought us revolutions in medicine and science, they can jeopardize our privacy and safety.
By championing the value of forgetting and warning about the dangers of "perfect memory", Mayer wants us to "remember how to forget in the digital age."
Chapter 2: Remembering and Forgetting
In Chapter 2, Mayer-Schonberger gives his readers a background of memory. He begins with explaining the biological process of remembering. There are two types of memories: declarative, which involves a conscious act of remembering something like an event or idea, and procedural, which involves remembering something through repetition. These memories are opposed to the act of forgetting. How we forget is a debate among scientists. Some believe forgetting is mechanistic, and we literally lose a link to a memory. Others believe that our forgetting and remembering is a dynamic process, and our brain chooses what we remember according to our preferences.
The rest of Chapter 2 is devoted to the development of ways humans remember things. Back in primitive times, language was developed as a way to explain ideas or memories to others. Centuries later, language was still being used as a tool for memory through the oral passing-down of epics. However, although the main ideas are usually conveyed and remembered through language, details often get forgotten or misconstrued, so that the story ends up not entirely true to the original.
The language problem was solved by the development of external memory. Painting was the first way of recording experiences. Then came script and the writing down of memories. For a long time, however, obtaining writing materials like paper was very expensive. Only rich and powerful people like Ptolemy could keep a library (the first attempt at perfect memory). Libraries later became public, but it was still expensive and time-consuming for scribes to write out entire books. In 1450, Gutenberg created the printing press, which made making copies of books/memories much easier. Martin Luther helped the mass-production of external memory by translating the Bible into the German vernacular. Still, buying a book was expensive for the common person. Finally with the advent of the newspaper, penny press, and yellow-back books, external memories were available for the general, middle-class public. Having newspapers created a common memory in society, and changed their relation to time.
More currently, cameras, video cameras, and audio-recording devices have made it simpler to record memories. However, with a higher number of recorded memories comes the difficulty of retrieving and organizing them. Mayer-Schonberger ends the chapter saying, “Until recently, the fact that remembering has always been at least a little bit harder than forgetting helped us humans avoide the fundamental question of whether we would like to remember everything forever if we could. Not anymore.”
Chapter 3: The Demise of Forgetting
Mayer-Schonberger presents the idea in chapter three, “The Demise of Forgetting,” that we have entered an age where everything is recorded. He gives the example of Gordon Bell, who has compiled all records of his life – from snapshots taken every 30 seconds from a device hanging from his neck to every email he has ever sent – into a “gigantic external memory of his life” (51). Through this example, Mayer-Schonberger explains the shift from analog to digital form, and the vast improvements it has brought to the storage of information. He therefore comes to the thesis of this chapter: “remembering has become the norm, and forgetting the exception” (52). The main drivers of this shift, as explained in detail throughout the chapter, are digitization, cheap storage, easy retrieval, and global reach.
The development of digital media sparked a revolution in technology. Analog readers were faulty in that they would accrue an amount of “noise” so that each subsequent copy would accumulate more “noise” and make a copy of a copy very easy to detect. Perfect copies did not exist in analog, therefore making the original of significant value. Digital copies, however, were rendered perfect. There was no discernable difference between copies, or even the breakdown that occurred from too much use with analog media. This reduced the value of originals greatly, so that sharing became very popular. Also, digitization streamlined the use of different media. Sound, video, text, and photos could all be viewed on the same digital device which is more efficient than having separate devices for each medium. Digitization also protects the information, as unless the physical storage is destroyed, the information will not decay the way that analog forms would. Sharing is a big part of digitization, and using streamlined devices enables users to combine media to create new forms. Users can write over the original product and create new works to share with others.
Digitization has been successful largely because of its availability. Technology has advanced so quickly that “by the time one has filled up her hard disk, a newer one is available with double or triple the amount of storage capacity” (65). The rate of increase is only slowed by “switching costs,” which occur when a newer piece of technology is not backward compatible, such as upgrading a VHS to a DVD player. Newer technology tries to combat this by working with older technology, as the Blue Ray player works with both Blue Ray disks and DVDs. This is not true, however, of hard drives, since as long as the information can be accessed, users do not care about the internal “plumbing” of the device. Thus, the wide availability and inexpensive means of storage allows everything to be stored cheaply. Mayer-Schonberger explains that it is more cost efficient to simply allow all the files to be stored automatically than to routinely go through and eliminate ones that are not used. It is also helpful to have a back-up system, even if the evidence is not always desirable. The author references the vast availability of storage on the web through sites like Hotmail, Yahoo!, and Google.
With the vast amounts of data we can now save and peruse as we please, we need a way to retrieve our information. The ability to search for information within among data increases the value of the information (73). Easy retrieval, however, didn’t used to be so easy, and we came a long way from the first manuscripts to the wonders of Google. Mayer-Schonberger recounts the evolution of organization, from filing to indexes. Other forms of media such as photography or videos little or no such indexing – the user must manually flip through images or fast-forward through a VHS tape to find what he is looking for. Even when computers were first developed, programmers followed a very cataloguing style of organizing, similar to books. “[T]he humans designing the first generations of digital systems were caught up in real-world metaphors of information organization” (75). Ted Codd formulated the more advanced form we know today with the concept of “relational databases” that stored information like a grid, allowing more flexible search terms. The next step in search revolution came with “full-text indexing” that allowed chunks of text to be searched within a document or file, allowing for more than just the tags associated with a file to show up. The author’s only argument against Easy Retrieval is that these searches remove the files from context. Instead of browsing a text and picking up relevant background information on the way, the user only receives a snapshot of the result. I think this is a weak argument against such a valuable social tool.
None of this information could be as widespread and successful without Global Reach. The Internet afforded the possibility of connecting users in their homes to vast stores of knowledge: held together through the digitization process, cheap storage, and easy retrieval. As technology advances, connection speed has gone up and cost down, thus allowing for the globalization of the Internet. Three things have facilitated the development: packet-switched structure of the Internet, fiber optic cable for broadband connections, and facilitating retrofitting existing infrastructure to meet demand without physically laying new cable (80-81). The widespread availability of the Internet allows for sharing of information between users, although Mayer-Schonberger warns that once information is shared, the user no longer has control over it. He argues that it is difficult to keep information about a user private on the Internet, and that security is never truly safe. However, he does acknowledge that it is now almost impossible to exist “offline” and that we must embrace the digital age with caution.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Republic.com 2.0 Part 2
In the second half of Sunstein's Republic.com, we roughly change gears from Internet usage to the implications of the trends of usage on the Republic. In our discussion of this portion of the text, we will cover and and critique Sunstein's main themes, theories and policy proposals.
Points to Keep in Mind:
There is great polarization on blogs that can be seen by links and blog rolls that encourage polarized communities that contribute to the echo-effect.
Regulation of free speech on the Internet, as in all spheres, is necessary. The issue is of what kind of regulation there will be. The concern should not be of government regulation- it should be of government regulation that lessens the freedoms that we had before. Government regulation of speech, at least in the form of property rights that shut out would be speakers, is a pervasive part of a system of freedom that respects, and therefore creates, rights of exclusion for owners of communications outlets.
Sunstein makes the strong point that freedom of speech is not absolute. The first amendment is not based on the idea of consumer sovereignty, but political sovereignty. The court lacks constitutional answers for
governmental efforts to make the speech market work effectively with new technologies.
Points to Keep in Mind:
There is great polarization on blogs that can be seen by links and blog rolls that encourage polarized communities that contribute to the echo-effect.
Regulation of free speech on the Internet, as in all spheres, is necessary. The issue is of what kind of regulation there will be. The concern should not be of government regulation- it should be of government regulation that lessens the freedoms that we had before. Government regulation of speech, at least in the form of property rights that shut out would be speakers, is a pervasive part of a system of freedom that respects, and therefore creates, rights of exclusion for owners of communications outlets.
Sunstein makes the strong point that freedom of speech is not absolute. The first amendment is not based on the idea of consumer sovereignty, but political sovereignty. The court lacks constitutional answers for
governmental efforts to make the speech market work effectively with new technologies.
Policy Proposals:
- Deliberative Domains: This would be a public website that would provide opportunities of people with diverse views to discuss and hopefully increase citizen engagement and understanding. Sunstein sketches out the details of what such a space would look like on page 193.
- Disclosure of relevant conduct by networks and other large producers of communication: This simple regulatory tool would allow people to disclose what they are doing to the general public. It may or may not influence behavior, but Sunstein says this is not very practical for websites that may provide voluntary warnings about their content already.
- Voluntary self-regulation: This could be used to break harmful effects intact now without violating free speech rights. Sunstein envisions that this could potentially avoid sensationalist political coverage and provide coverage to public issues.
- Economic subsidies, including publicly subsidized programming and websites: This would require taxpayer money to support nonprofit, nongovernmental spaces online. Sunstein proposes this as a neo-PBS model for a new communications system.
- Must-carry policies to promote education and attention to public issues: The requirement of coverage of issues, as Sunstein sees it, would have no place online.
- Creative use of links to draw people’s attention to multiple views: Sunstein says that the freedom of information is funded for the public by advertisers that are buying brief access to people's attentions. Sunstein proposes to assemble public-interest actors to engage public interest by using links and icons for social benefit, but recognizes that this would violate the first amendment.
He then briefly discusses the tyranny of the status quo and its implications for the potential for future change, in that the idea that the present is best hinders future advancements on Internet regulation for the greater sake of the Republic.
Wrapping up, Sunstein takes his discussion back to the issue of the Republic and the undermining of democratic ideals. He stresses the risks associated with such a polarization provided by Internet usage of citizens, with disclaimers about his ideas, which we will pay particular attention to:
“I do not mean to say that this is the usual pattern or that this is what most people are mostly doing... But clustering is nonetheless common, and group polarization is a significant risk even if only a relatively small proportion of people chooses to listen and speak with those who are like-minded” (Sunstein 213).
“The internet is hardly an enemy here. It holds out far more promise than risk... But to the extent that people are using the Internet to create echo chambers and to wall themselves off from topics and opinions that they would prefer to avoid, they are creating serious dangers” (Sunstein 222-223).
Monday, November 8, 2010
Republic.com 2.0 Part One
 |
| press.princeton.edu |
People need to see new point of views, opinions, and subjects that they wouldn’t have thought about before so we are not so narrow-minded. General-interest intermediaries involve shared experiences with diversities, and expose people to materials and topics that they did not seek out beforehand. Examples of general-interest intermediaries include: newspapers, TV broadcasts, and magazines. However, these are on the decline because people can filter out what news they want to read, hear, or see on the Internet. I believe there has to a need for general-interest intermediaries because we need diverse opinions and more open minds. If everyone thought the same, it would even encourage governments to control and censor new and emerging ideas.
Sunstein argues that the decline in general-interest intermediaries has led to an increase in polarization. Using politics as an example, he provides studies that show that conservatives tend to embrace Fox News and shy away from CNN and NPR while liberals go out of their way to avoid Fox News and are more inclined to watch CNN or listen to NPR. He also points out that conservative sites increasingly link only to other conservative sites and less to liberal sites. The same trend is true of liberal sites. This creates a polarization effect because people hear views that reinforce their own beliefs and denigrate the other point of view.
In a vacuum, Sunstein has a point. If you only visited liberal sites on the internet as a liberal, obviously your liberal ideas would be reinforced. However, I think that he is looking at this too specifically. Even if, among political sites, I only follow liberal sites I still have other interests. On a sports blog I might encounter strong conservatives and we might end up engaged in a political debate in the message board. His theory works on the assumption that people only have one specific interest, not that they have a plurality of interests that intersect and cause a meeting of different points of view.
Sunstein worries that eventually society will fragment to the point that becomes decentralized. He reacts skeptically to the notion that these fragments will work as a network. Sunstein sees an extreme where there are more “echo chambers” than actual conversations. He acknowledges that “the current situation is hardly worse than what preceded it; on the contrary, it is much better, if only because of the increase in the number and range of the voices.” However, he seems more concerned with presenting an apocalyptic version of the internet where everyone is an extremist or becoming an extremist.
I think however, Sunstein accurately notes our responsibilities as citizens. He maintains that an informed citizen is most important to a democracy. He points to the growing number of options and says it is very easy to only pick those that agree with the options that are most comfortable. However, it is important for citizens to try to seek out other options to reach informed decisions.
A blog is created every 2.2 seconds as of present day. Finding a blog is extremely simple because there are millions of blogs about anything and everything. Blogs can contain a lot of information as it assembles sources from many different sources, like a general-interest intermediary. But some blogs can filter their sources that only support their point of view, which goes back to the information cocoon as it falls back into the echo chamber. Unfortunately then, bloggers are supporting their own biases. Another problem that arises in the blogosphere is the blogger’s credibility. When a blogger does not have much credibility they are unlikely to object to exaggerations and falsehoods that appeal to the prejudices of their target audiences (143). I believe blogs should always study the opposite point-of-view to eliminate such huge biases. Blogs, like people living in a heterogeneous society should be fair-minded in the ways they present themselves and their points of view.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Here Comes Everybody Part 2
In the second part of his book, Shirky parallels personal motivation and collaborative production through social tools such as Wikipedia, Twitter, and Facebook. Wikipedia illustrates the combination of desire to inform others and a willingness to work cohesively to create said social forum. The advent of Wikipedia allowed for others to work on a "shared writing effort without needing formal management or process"(111). Every Wikipedia page, being the sum of progressive changes and alterations on specific subjects. Furthermore, Wikipedia highlights major themes in social tools such as software and community concerns. Since there is not one designated person responsible for managing information, researching and editing have been constant for five years and the added non profit aspect of these social tools allows for contributors to equally play a role in its development.
Shirky further asserts that anything that increases ability to share information increases our freedom to pursue goals, therefore assuming that everyone would contribute. However, this is not the case as Shirky illustrates the power law which shows that there is an imbalance in contributions and participation. Less readers creates loose conversation within smaller audiences. Shirky also notes specific reasons that writers contribute to social tools: to give random knowledge, vanity, and make a meaningful contribution by doing a good thing (132). These reasons also give explain why these social tools are not vandalized and can withstand disagreement. Additionally, the notion of love as a driving source for tools such as Wikipedia. Love propels tools such as Wikipedia and provides for its improvement and defense. Shirky makes a clear distinction of love as well, as he states that love is not what it used to be, now love is "less squishy and less private".
Collaborative action and institutional challenges have allowed for collaborations such as Wikipedia, Twitter and Facebook to challenge bigger corporations and in some instances government. In the wake of the priest scandal, the internet was readily available to spread more information only after the scandal had initially began. This variation in knowledge between 1992 and 2002 showed that the internet lent itself as a new form of sharing. Bloggers and internet reports were readily available to challenge and maintain the story in the face of the public in contrast to newspaper clippings. This gave way to group formations that allowed for " easier and wider dissemination of information " (151). Social tools removed barriers that were present in disseminating this information; the locality of information and barriers to group reaction. By working together in groups, people were able to extend the reaction and result of the scandals and challenge the way the Church regulated information to the public.
Collaborative action and institutional challenges have allowed for collaborations such as Wikipedia, Twitter and Facebook to challenge bigger corporations and in some instances government. In the wake of the priest scandal, the internet was readily available to spread more information only after the scandal had initially began. This variation in knowledge between 1992 and 2002 showed that the internet lent itself as a new form of sharing. Bloggers and internet reports were readily available to challenge and maintain the story in the face of the public in contrast to newspaper clippings. This gave way to group formations that allowed for " easier and wider dissemination of information " (151). Social tools removed barriers that were present in disseminating this information; the locality of information and barriers to group reaction. By working together in groups, people were able to extend the reaction and result of the scandals and challenge the way the Church regulated information to the public.
As a result of bigger audiences and availability of information- people have incorporated tools meant for fast communication in lieu of traditional forms of interaction. Text messaging changes definitive plans in society as people are able to change notice through of ease of communication. In his airlines example, people were able to make progress only after calling the owner of the airlines and demanding the gate opened after 7 hours of waiting on board. With telephones, people are able to stop traveling for communication and assume that these tools are actually good substitutes for travel. Shirky further concludes that people must make distinctions between positive forms of social awareness such as alcoholics anonymous and pro-ana websites. Although both create forums for groups gathering on a specific cause, it is obvious that most approval will go to the alcoholic anonymous. Overall, Shirky highlights the way organization through social tools has not only revolutionized how society is affected by daily issues but also the level that it organizes individuals with each other.
Shirky explains that one of the most important factors to the success of a network, is the concept of a Small World. The key components to a Small World is that there are densely connected small groups and sparsely connected large groups. This means that in a small group of people, everyone knows everyone else but there are few connections between a small group and the next small group. The advantages of this network, are that information can more easily be transmitted along large groups because the people connecting the clusters of people will quickly pass along the information to all clusters. Each cluster is usually drawn together over a similar interest so they will disperse the information among themselves. This system combines bridging capital, how information travels across groups, and bonding capital, the amount of trust you place in people in your group.
Another key component to the success of organizations is the amount of failure. Shirky brings up the example of Meetup, which he claims succeeds because of how many groups fail to materialize. This is because Meetup has set such a low barrier to participation that many people are willing to try and fail which increases the likelihood of a group succeeding as opposed to an organization that has a high barrier to participation which decreases the likelihood people will try out the service or organization. This logic holds true for any other free service available such as Flickr, blogs, and mailing lists. One of the most successful forms of this failure is open source software. As Shirky points out, on Sourceforge, a leading open source download hub, the leading downloaded software gets millions of downloads cumulatively and tens of thousands in one day. However, at the 95th percentile, the software getting downloaded is only around one thousand cumulative downloads and at the 75th percentile, the software never gets downloaded. This exemplifies the 80/20 power law distribution which essentially means 20% of anything in a network gets 80% of the resources. So 20% of the software on Sourceforge gets 80% of the downloads. This is important organizing groups according to the “publish-then-filter” since people can try a group for anything, and then filter out the failed ones. In previous methods of software development and organizing though, companies and organizers had to ignore people who would only be casually involved because they were dealing with limited resources and could only pursue the 80% of successful products. However, with such a low cost to online organizing and developing open-source software, today all 100% of the successful products can be made available.
Shirky sums up the success of a group into three aspects, the promise, tool, and bargain. The promise is the key to attracting new people to your organization. Organizations have to promise something that will interest people and then also set the barrier to participation low enough to lure people into joining. The tool is important because not every social tool can fit in every situation. For example, Twitter could not have organized the airline protest and blogging would not have been effective for the Egyptian prodemocracy activists. Each situation has a good fit for each tool and finding the best tool for your group is crucial to its success. Finally, the bargain is necessary because it will keep a person engaged. The bargain is what the person receives and contributes to the community. For example, in a wiki, the bargain is you can edit any article, and any person can edit your article. While not all bargains are this simple, they are the final component in building a successful group with social tools. However, finding the right combination of these elements is very difficult which is why many groups fail but those few that can find the right combination succeed overwhelmingly.
Shirky concludes with a look to the future of social tools. As new technologies and tools are constantly developed, the patterns under which they operate will continue to change. It’s impossible to tell what the next new technology is but it’s certain to affect the way people live their lives and how communities and organizations operate. However, Shirky expects young people to continue to play a role in our society adopting these technologies since we are more likely to try new things but eventually these tools are adopted by society as a whole.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Here Comes Everybody, Part 1
Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody, focuses on one main question: How are new social tools changing the power of group action? Shirky starts off by providing an example of the power of group action when given the right tools. A woman, Ivanna, loses her phone in taxi, and it ends up in the hands of Sasha, who refuses to give it back. Because of new social tools that allow groups to more easily self-assemble, Ivanna’s friend was able to get millions of people on their side, which led to the arrest of Sasha and the return of the phone. Shirky argues that new social tools have “radically altered the old limits on the size, sophistication, and scope of the unsupervised effort” (21). This example also shows how the internet has increased the likelihood of being scrutinized in public. The main point is: changing the way we communicate and the way groups get things done changes society (17).
Shirky then uses the example of the Coney Island Mermaid Parade to demonstrate how new social tools (Flickr in this case) can now achieve things that were previously out of reach for traditional organization because they lay under the Coasean floor (the cost of management > profit margin). For the first time, attendees were able to form a group and share their pictures because cost of coordinating group action has been lowered. This changes the traditional “Gather, then share” to “Share, then Gather.” One key point is that “Aggregations of anything from atoms to people exhibit complex behavior that cannot be predicted by observing the component parts” (28). How might this relate to our blogs?
In the next chapter, Shirky discusses the mass amateurization of publishing. He claims that traditionally, professionals were gatekeepers who provided and controlled access to information (57). Now that anyone can publish on blogs, media is not as much controlled by professionals, and the limitations in having a small number of traditional press outlets are undone (65). To explain this, Shirky gives us the example of a congressman whose racist quote could not be covered by the traditional press, but once covered by bloggers, forcing the congressman into an apology, the traditional press could cover the apology, providing a way for them to show the racist quote without it being “old news” (61). One important question that Shirky brings up is "who should enjoy journalistic privilege?" How do we include journalistic bloggers, without including so many people that journalistic privilege becomes unprofitable?
Shirky then discusses the “Publish, then filter” aspect of blogging and other new social tools. Traditionally, to get something published, someone would have to think it was worth publishing. Now, you can publish anything, and then people will decide if it is good. How does this benefit/hinder our experience as bloggers? Shirky argues that there is no clear point when a blog stops being a diary and starts being a media outlet. Do you agree with this? He compares the audience to a community, and says that it is “as if your phone could turn into a radio station at the turn of a knob” (89).
One other key point from this section is that change comes when the invention of a tool has been around long enough that it is ubiquitous. Now that these new social tools that allow social groups to easily and cheaply self-assemble are becoming ubiquitous for young users, we are going to see some big changes in the way our society functions very soon (108).
Shirky then uses the example of the Coney Island Mermaid Parade to demonstrate how new social tools (Flickr in this case) can now achieve things that were previously out of reach for traditional organization because they lay under the Coasean floor (the cost of management > profit margin). For the first time, attendees were able to form a group and share their pictures because cost of coordinating group action has been lowered. This changes the traditional “Gather, then share” to “Share, then Gather.” One key point is that “Aggregations of anything from atoms to people exhibit complex behavior that cannot be predicted by observing the component parts” (28). How might this relate to our blogs?
In the next chapter, Shirky discusses the mass amateurization of publishing. He claims that traditionally, professionals were gatekeepers who provided and controlled access to information (57). Now that anyone can publish on blogs, media is not as much controlled by professionals, and the limitations in having a small number of traditional press outlets are undone (65). To explain this, Shirky gives us the example of a congressman whose racist quote could not be covered by the traditional press, but once covered by bloggers, forcing the congressman into an apology, the traditional press could cover the apology, providing a way for them to show the racist quote without it being “old news” (61). One important question that Shirky brings up is "who should enjoy journalistic privilege?" How do we include journalistic bloggers, without including so many people that journalistic privilege becomes unprofitable?
Shirky then discusses the “Publish, then filter” aspect of blogging and other new social tools. Traditionally, to get something published, someone would have to think it was worth publishing. Now, you can publish anything, and then people will decide if it is good. How does this benefit/hinder our experience as bloggers? Shirky argues that there is no clear point when a blog stops being a diary and starts being a media outlet. Do you agree with this? He compares the audience to a community, and says that it is “as if your phone could turn into a radio station at the turn of a knob” (89).
One other key point from this section is that change comes when the invention of a tool has been around long enough that it is ubiquitous. Now that these new social tools that allow social groups to easily and cheaply self-assemble are becoming ubiquitous for young users, we are going to see some big changes in the way our society functions very soon (108).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)