Monday, May 2, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Literacy on Last.fm
To be a member of Last.fm, one can have any type of music taste they please. Some profiles declare Britney Spears as goddess of the universe while others swear by independent acts such as William Fitzsimmons. There are the hip-hop lovers and even the classic rock haters. The reality about Last.fm is your music taste is the creator of your identity. You can be whoever you want on the site. Except if you decide to join a group.
I wrote the following for my Cyberculture Project, and it gives a brief overview of the literacy expectancies of Last.fm.
Located beneath the immediate surface of Last.fm is a plethora of “groups,” or forums, built around a single interest. These groups are comprised of Last.fm users who want to gather around similar interests.
The majority of these groups are based around bands, genres, and musical tastes, but there are also groups based around interests other than music. The interesting thing about these groups is Last.fm maintains a musical focus in every group, even if they are based around topics unrelated to music, by listing the collective “top artists” of the group based on the Scrobbled artists of the group members. For instance, there are over 17,000 members in a group called “For those who don’t sleep enough at night for no apparent reason,” and the most listened to artist by the group members is Weezer.
In this sense, the group establishes the type of musical taste expected of members in the group. In the “For those who don’t sleep enough at night for no apparent reason” group description, the person who started the group and moderates it says, “This is what ye all collectively listen to. Nod in agreement or cringe in shame, t'is your call,” and he then proceeds to list the top genres of the group before declaring, “and just for kicks, this is how your leader compares to his own group: His musical preference is 88.55% similar to the For those who don't sleep enough due to staying up late at night for no apparent reason group. Musically, he fits in!”
To join the site, you can be whoever you want. But underlying the governing principles set up by the Last.fm community on the group is an expectation for a particular music taste.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Cyber Bullying
I continue to be entranced with the Internet's ability to create substantial social change. It has yet to be used to its full potential, but many people are using the online space for more than just entertainment. I have highlighted before services online that seem to be targeted at adults with credit cards and the ability to make online donations, but I found one innovative service directed at kids and changing the childhood culture for the better in our increasingly connected world.
When I was a kid, bullying happened on the playground at recess. Today, however, much of the bullying between kids is happening online. The Cyberbullying Research Center reports anywhere from 10 to 40% of teens experience cyberbullying. The anonymity of the Internet poses great problems for kids online. Many kids verbally assault other kids online, hiding behind a nameless wall.
Mashable recently published an article called "How Shakespeare & Social Media Are Fighting Cyber Bullying." The article is written by Zachary Sniderman, and it highlights a new attempt to combat cyberbullying and engage students in classical literature at the same time by having students engage in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing.
How would you stop cyberbullying?
When I was a kid, bullying happened on the playground at recess. Today, however, much of the bullying between kids is happening online. The Cyberbullying Research Center reports anywhere from 10 to 40% of teens experience cyberbullying. The anonymity of the Internet poses great problems for kids online. Many kids verbally assault other kids online, hiding behind a nameless wall.
Mashable recently published an article called "How Shakespeare & Social Media Are Fighting Cyber Bullying." The article is written by Zachary Sniderman, and it highlights a new attempt to combat cyberbullying and engage students in classical literature at the same time by having students engage in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing.
"Much Ado About Nothing will be presented on a special page through status updates, posts, pictures and videos. The students helped create separate pages for their characters complete with pictures, in-character bios and likes. The project is meant both as an educational resource and a tool to combat cyber bullying. People have long modernized Shakespeare by dressing actors in current clothing and trying to adapt the sometimes dense, complicated language. This project marks a quantum leap in format, as well, updating not only the characters but the way in which they interact. The play will be set in modern day, with dialogue and issues that are relevant to students. The play revolves around issues of hearsay and verbal abuse, making it a perfect segue to talking about online abuse."We have talked a great deal in this class about the dangers of anonymity online and about the crude things people say when their names aren't connected to their words. Kids are not exempt from this, and in order for us to create a more civil forum online, we must stop the trend with the next generation. We must educate them about the importance of civil discourse and promote healthy interactions. Shakespeare is just the first step.
How would you stop cyberbullying?
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The End of Downtime
Recently, I read an article published by The 99% called "What Happened to Downtime? The Extinction of Deep Thinking & Sacred Space" by Scott Belsky. Essentially this article argues we are increasingly loosing our ability to disconnect from technology, causing us to forfeit deep thinking and personal reflection.
"Interruption-free space is sacred. Yet, in the digital era we live in, we are losing hold of the few sacred spaces that remain untouched by email, the internet, people, and other forms of distraction. Our cars now have mobile phone integration and a thousand satellite radio stations. When walking from one place to another, we have our devices streaming data from dozens of sources. Even at our bedside, we now have our iPads with heaps of digital apps and the world's information at our fingertips."
Our world that is selling technology to us in a packaged box wrapped in promises of an easier life and more efficient life at the cost of our ability to be alone. The article opens with a discussion about what is called the "creative pause."
The author defines this as “the shift from being fully engaged in a creative activity to being passively engaged, or the shift to being disengaged altogether," citing the epiphanies people claim to have in the shower as results of this.
The shower may be one of the few places left where we must leave technology aside and face our own thoughts. In these creative pauses, we are isolated and are free to think about deeper questions.
The author argues for the idea that our desire to be constantly connected existed before the emergence of digital technology, but the existence of digital technology increasingly allows us to meet that desire.
Because of new technologies, we are "depriving ourselves of every opportunity for disconnection."
The emergence of digital technology certainly has beneficial ramifications on our lives, but progress may only happen if we know when to shut those digital technologies down and think. As Belsky says, "brilliance is so rare because it is always obstructed, often by the very stuff that keeps us so busy."
Do you take deliberate steps to take breaks from technology? How does it increase (or decrease) your productivity and your perception of you own well-being?
"Interruption-free space is sacred. Yet, in the digital era we live in, we are losing hold of the few sacred spaces that remain untouched by email, the internet, people, and other forms of distraction. Our cars now have mobile phone integration and a thousand satellite radio stations. When walking from one place to another, we have our devices streaming data from dozens of sources. Even at our bedside, we now have our iPads with heaps of digital apps and the world's information at our fingertips."
Our world that is selling technology to us in a packaged box wrapped in promises of an easier life and more efficient life at the cost of our ability to be alone. The article opens with a discussion about what is called the "creative pause."
The author defines this as “the shift from being fully engaged in a creative activity to being passively engaged, or the shift to being disengaged altogether," citing the epiphanies people claim to have in the shower as results of this.
The shower may be one of the few places left where we must leave technology aside and face our own thoughts. In these creative pauses, we are isolated and are free to think about deeper questions.
The author argues for the idea that our desire to be constantly connected existed before the emergence of digital technology, but the existence of digital technology increasingly allows us to meet that desire.
Because of new technologies, we are "depriving ourselves of every opportunity for disconnection."
The emergence of digital technology certainly has beneficial ramifications on our lives, but progress may only happen if we know when to shut those digital technologies down and think. As Belsky says, "brilliance is so rare because it is always obstructed, often by the very stuff that keeps us so busy."
Do you take deliberate steps to take breaks from technology? How does it increase (or decrease) your productivity and your perception of you own well-being?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Cathy Davidson "had no idea when [she] posted this it would be such a popular topic." What she is referring to here is her blog post written about how she goes about crowdsourcing grading in her classroom. Davidson, a professor teaching a class called "Your Brain on the Internet," feels students should have to participate in the evaluation process of their peers. She ultimately wants to teach her students "responsibility, credibility, judgment, honesty, and how to offer good criticism to one's peers--and, in turn, how to receive it."
Many people responded to this idea of handing over grading to the students, and they responded in a variety of ways. She even received a comment that said she is
“a wacko holding forth on a soapbox. If Ms. Davidson just wants to yammer and lead discussions, she should resign her position and head for a park or subway platform, and pass a hat for donations.”
Why does the idea of handing over grading power to the group of people working for a grade cause such controversy? In Davidson's own words, she answers this question by saying, "I think it is because grading, in a curious way, exemplifies our deepest convictions about excellence and authority, and specifically about the right of those with authority to define what constitutes excellence."
The Internet in itself can only work well to promote democracy if we, as members of the online community, participate in discourse and in the evaluation, civil critique, and debate of ideas. With her grading style, Davidson is attempting to help her students do this in an offline context.
One of the responders to her post had this to say:
"I like that grades represent a normalized scale of relative accomplishment."
In a crowdsourced grading environment, grades are still represented in this manner if the professor gives a basic structure to the grading system. Simply telling students to grade each other without any sort of bench mark for each grade is not effective.
Professors should give basic structure to the grading system and then let students evaluate each other based on those standards.
Do you think this type of evaluation would work in a professional environment? What if managers didn't ultimately evaluate performance and coworkers in the same level of power evaluated each other?
Many people responded to this idea of handing over grading to the students, and they responded in a variety of ways. She even received a comment that said she is
“a wacko holding forth on a soapbox. If Ms. Davidson just wants to yammer and lead discussions, she should resign her position and head for a park or subway platform, and pass a hat for donations.”
Why does the idea of handing over grading power to the group of people working for a grade cause such controversy? In Davidson's own words, she answers this question by saying, "I think it is because grading, in a curious way, exemplifies our deepest convictions about excellence and authority, and specifically about the right of those with authority to define what constitutes excellence."
The Internet in itself can only work well to promote democracy if we, as members of the online community, participate in discourse and in the evaluation, civil critique, and debate of ideas. With her grading style, Davidson is attempting to help her students do this in an offline context.
One of the responders to her post had this to say:
"I like that grades represent a normalized scale of relative accomplishment."
In a crowdsourced grading environment, grades are still represented in this manner if the professor gives a basic structure to the grading system. Simply telling students to grade each other without any sort of bench mark for each grade is not effective.
Professors should give basic structure to the grading system and then let students evaluate each other based on those standards.
Do you think this type of evaluation would work in a professional environment? What if managers didn't ultimately evaluate performance and coworkers in the same level of power evaluated each other?
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Internet Relief
With the horrific destruction that rocked Japan about a month ago when it an earthquake shook the country and killed thousands of people, the global community needed a way to provide financial resources to bring relief to Japanese citizens in need of aid. The internet has proven to be an essential resource in reacting to natural disasters with an unprecedented amount of publicity and a massive ability to raise funds.
The digitization, commercialization, and increased connectivity invading our world often is criticized and pegged as the movement that will eventually destroy our ability as humans to interact with one another and socialize with one another. These arguments all hold merit, but it is important to note that the Internet offers an unprecedented amount of positive implications on the way we can provide relief to natural disasters that happen across the world. In this regard, for example, people were able to use their cell phones to donate to relief efforts through text message and on Twitter.
I was reading on Mashable recently about a website that popped up after the earthquake that provided a resource and venue for people who wanted to offer their home as a makeshift shelter. The website is called Sparkrelief, and great numbers of people have offered their homes up to people who were displaced by the tsunami. This website uses the power of inter-connectivity to provide relief in a way that could never have been available before the birth of the internet and mapping technology.
As we continue to explore and push for progress on the Internet, it is important for us to always be pushing for innovation in the sectors that can bring positive social impact on our world. Investing millions of dollars into social media is worthwhile if the social media we are pursuing also provides social benefit to people in need.
Do you know of any other ways the internet is being used in innovative and revolutionary ways to care for the world's hurting or to solve social problems?
The digitization, commercialization, and increased connectivity invading our world often is criticized and pegged as the movement that will eventually destroy our ability as humans to interact with one another and socialize with one another. These arguments all hold merit, but it is important to note that the Internet offers an unprecedented amount of positive implications on the way we can provide relief to natural disasters that happen across the world. In this regard, for example, people were able to use their cell phones to donate to relief efforts through text message and on Twitter.
I was reading on Mashable recently about a website that popped up after the earthquake that provided a resource and venue for people who wanted to offer their home as a makeshift shelter. The website is called Sparkrelief, and great numbers of people have offered their homes up to people who were displaced by the tsunami. This website uses the power of inter-connectivity to provide relief in a way that could never have been available before the birth of the internet and mapping technology.
As we continue to explore and push for progress on the Internet, it is important for us to always be pushing for innovation in the sectors that can bring positive social impact on our world. Investing millions of dollars into social media is worthwhile if the social media we are pursuing also provides social benefit to people in need.
Do you know of any other ways the internet is being used in innovative and revolutionary ways to care for the world's hurting or to solve social problems?
Ai Weiwei
A Chinese artist named Ai Weiwei has been detained by the Chinese government for his anti-government views and his oppositional viewpoints. The interesting thing about this man is he is an avid user of Twitter and Facebook as means for his social commentary, and many are saying that it is because of his use of these mediums that the Chinese government decided to take him into custody. An interview with Radio Australia (located here: http://bit.ly/hM4YWE) shows how some experts believe Weiwei's abduction is in some ways caused by his presence on social media.
The Executive Secretary of China Human Rights Lawyers' Concern Group had this to say:
"Instead of just criticizing the government, he would try to make use of the internet as a tool, to call for people to do something funny - to ridicule the government and also to help the people to find the arrested or detained human rights defenders, in very creative ways. So I think he attracted so many people to follow him on his Twitter, so many people want to be his friend on his Facebook, so I think that's why the public security becomes so anxious about his influence."
The interesting thing about this excerpt is the notion that Weiwei's activism was not considered much of a threat until he took it to Twitter and Facebook. Weiwei has been an activist for many years now. The 53-year-old artist has had many things to say about the wrongdoings of the government, but it wasn't until he took to the web and had a platform that spanned nations and cultural divisions that he became a threat.
The internet offers us a great deal of potential for the furthering of democracy, but with that comes the increased scrutiny and censorship from oppressive governments.
"[Weiwei] would make use of very courageous ways to make other people think about the issues. So he became a very influential figure on the internet."
What kind of potential opportunities are presented by social media platforms to individuals in speech-restricted areas?
The Executive Secretary of China Human Rights Lawyers' Concern Group had this to say:
"Instead of just criticizing the government, he would try to make use of the internet as a tool, to call for people to do something funny - to ridicule the government and also to help the people to find the arrested or detained human rights defenders, in very creative ways. So I think he attracted so many people to follow him on his Twitter, so many people want to be his friend on his Facebook, so I think that's why the public security becomes so anxious about his influence."
The interesting thing about this excerpt is the notion that Weiwei's activism was not considered much of a threat until he took it to Twitter and Facebook. Weiwei has been an activist for many years now. The 53-year-old artist has had many things to say about the wrongdoings of the government, but it wasn't until he took to the web and had a platform that spanned nations and cultural divisions that he became a threat.
The internet offers us a great deal of potential for the furthering of democracy, but with that comes the increased scrutiny and censorship from oppressive governments.
"[Weiwei] would make use of very courageous ways to make other people think about the issues. So he became a very influential figure on the internet."
What kind of potential opportunities are presented by social media platforms to individuals in speech-restricted areas?
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
S/R Paper 3: eXistenZ
eXistenZ is a film directed by David Cronenberg that shows a world in which humanity has access to games that allow us to fully engage as active citizens in a virtually real world through the use of “game-pods” that connect into our body through “bio-ports” in our spine. Allegra Gellar is introduced as the “world’s greatest game designer,” and the film opens with her leading a test group of consumers through a trial of her newest game called eXistenZ. After an attempted assassination on Allegra’s life, marketing trainee Ted Pikul evacuates the area with Allegra. Fearing that the game may be corrupted, she believes she can only fix it by bringing “someone friendly” into the game with her. A man at a gas station who is bent on killing Allegra injects Ted with a bio-port despite him having a “phobia about having his body penetrated surgically” so that he can go into the game with her, but the bio-port ends up being faulty and damages Allegra’s game-pod. When the game-pod is repaired and Ted receives a new bio-port, both Allegra and Ted enter the game. Involved in a new virtual world, Ted finds it difficult to distinguish between real and virtual. “What about our new identities?” Ted asks. “They’ll take care of themselves,” Allegra responds. Ted finds himself doing things that Allegra says are his character and not him, offering the viewer the question of whether or not virtual reality can go too far and blur the lines between what is reality and what is virtual. Feeling compelled to act uncontrollably, Ted builds a gun from his food at a Chinese restaurant and kills the waiter thinking he was an enemy. Ted eventually finds out that the waiter was actually their contact and that a man named Nourish is a double agent. Allegra almost bleeds to death after an infected pod is cut from her body, but she survives and stabs Nourish in the back. Allegra and Ted wake up in the ski lodge where they started, but a game character comes in the room showing them that they are not yet back in reality. Allegra kills Ted after she believes he is conspiring against her, and they both wake up to find themselves in a room hooked up to a virtual reality game called tranCendenZ. Ted and Allegra eventually kill the designer of tranCendenz, but the viewer is left uninformed about whether this occurred in real space or in the virtual space.
eXistenZ continually projects a world saturated in technological innovation and virtual realities where the line between virtual and reality is blurred to the point of confusion. Ted is faced with multiple situations throughout the film where he has anxiety about the nature of the virtual space and is compelled to say and do things he doesn’t want or intend to say or do. “I find this disgusting but I can’t help myself,” Ted says as he eats a meal of obscure and unappetizing creatures. Cronenberg communicates a world that allows us to be someone we are not, and proposes that there are instances in the virtual space where we are compelled to be something we are not. In the virtual world, Ted proposes that there “is an element of psychosis.” The world according to eXistenZ is a world that occurs in the virtual space. A feeling of psychosis, according to Allegra, is a sign that “the body is fully engaging with the gaming architecture.” Fully engaging in the virtual world means loosening the grasp on what is real and what is imagined or programmed. At one point, Ted pauses his virtual life in eXistenZ to return to his “real life.” When he gets there, however, he says that his life feels “completely unreal.” eXistenZ explores the world according to technology and ultimately argues that technology is shaping our reality. The viewer is intentionally unsure of what is reality and what is the virtual world, exploring the ramifications of a reality unified with technologically created spaces. In this world, eXistenZ argues, we are no longer unsure of what is real around us, we are unsure of what is real within us as well. Identity takes on a more fluid form, bending and transforming with the external environment. At the end of the film when the group is in the appearance of reality, the game designer says, “we’re back but I have a feeling some of our crew doesn’t realize it yet.”
Monday, March 28, 2011
Digitally Divided
In her piece "The New Digital Divide," Marcia Stapanek analyzes the way our personalization of information on the web has segregated us from one another, creating a divide in the online space where we cannot actively engage with other people. She advocates for a more active online community by stating, "we must stop assuming that civic engagement will occur online on its own." With her article, she analyzes the notion that "data-filtering" isn't a new phenomenon, but it is becoming easier and more destructive with the advancement of technology. Ultimately, Stapanek argues, the once dreamed about internet that promoted democracy and open communication has turned up thus far to be a fantasy, and unless we actively engage the digital space in a new way we will never see an online space that inspires and encourages open communication between members of different belief systems, attitudes, and traditions.
She ends her piece with a question saying, "Does the surge of online social networks and corporate use of Net filters to segment consumers of their products make it harder for people to engage with one another -- in or out of the workplace?"
I would answer her question with a resounding yes. The segmentation of humanity into a society that lets us pick and choose the information that we feel is convenient and entertaining to us creates an environment that makes us less likely to be put in environments where we have to encounter information that we don't agree with or don't like.
Our culture lets us personalize our news with things like Google News and blogs subscribing to a particular political leaning. Because of this, "we must work harder to break out of all of these self-imposed (or machine-imposed) comfort zones if we're to affect social change," Stapanek states. I couldn't agree with her more. If we are to build a democratic environment in the online space, we must enter into communities that allow us to engage opposing viewpoints and we must engage them on a respectful, civic, and ethical level.
Let's engage each other in a civic way. We can even start now! If you disagree with me (or agree with me, for that matter), express your opinions freely.
With all of these negative sides being discussed in this post, what do you see as the positive attributes of data-personalization on the web?
She ends her piece with a question saying, "Does the surge of online social networks and corporate use of Net filters to segment consumers of their products make it harder for people to engage with one another -- in or out of the workplace?"
I would answer her question with a resounding yes. The segmentation of humanity into a society that lets us pick and choose the information that we feel is convenient and entertaining to us creates an environment that makes us less likely to be put in environments where we have to encounter information that we don't agree with or don't like.
Our culture lets us personalize our news with things like Google News and blogs subscribing to a particular political leaning. Because of this, "we must work harder to break out of all of these self-imposed (or machine-imposed) comfort zones if we're to affect social change," Stapanek states. I couldn't agree with her more. If we are to build a democratic environment in the online space, we must enter into communities that allow us to engage opposing viewpoints and we must engage them on a respectful, civic, and ethical level.
Let's engage each other in a civic way. We can even start now! If you disagree with me (or agree with me, for that matter), express your opinions freely.
With all of these negative sides being discussed in this post, what do you see as the positive attributes of data-personalization on the web?
Monday, March 21, 2011
Privacy and Augmented Reality
After reading Benkoil's piece, "How The New York Times, Others Are Experimenting with Augmented Reality," some of the predictions made in Neuromancer can be seen in the present day. Augmented Reality is, by design, a convergence of the physical and technological worlds. The article defines AR as “layering digital information onto the physical world." With AR, the physical and the virtual become one stream of information and become a single medium. With a smart phone or portable electronic device, Augmented Reality has potentially boundless limits.
The article mentions multiple examples of how AR is being used and pushed in multiple mediums, citing everything from Esquire magazine's plans to integrate AR into their reader experience to how the U.S. Postal Service uses AR to help customers decide how big of a box they should buy to ship their goods. The article, overall, is showing that more companies, groups, and individuals are investing time and money into Augmented Reality technology because they believe that it is useful and marketable in the future.
With a greater push for AR technology, however, comes a greater need for adequate measures to protect the privacy of, well, just about everyone. At the very foundation of AR is the ability to gain access to information about the physical world that is not explicitly in sight. This creates what the article calls the "creepiness" factor. The author is right when he says that "it can be frightening to think of the possibilities for invasion of privacy."
With more money and more time being invested into AR, we should push for legislation to ensure that the development of these products does not disrupt the privacy of everyday individuals and businesses. Imagine a world where someone can point a camera phone at you and gain access to your Facebook profile, name, phone number, or personal information based on face recognition gained through Augmented Reality. AR has many positive projections (like the ability to know more than meets the eye) but we must be careful and invest cautiously into the technology, making sure we protect privacy along the way.
What do you think is the best way to protect privacy in AR?
The article mentions multiple examples of how AR is being used and pushed in multiple mediums, citing everything from Esquire magazine's plans to integrate AR into their reader experience to how the U.S. Postal Service uses AR to help customers decide how big of a box they should buy to ship their goods. The article, overall, is showing that more companies, groups, and individuals are investing time and money into Augmented Reality technology because they believe that it is useful and marketable in the future.
With a greater push for AR technology, however, comes a greater need for adequate measures to protect the privacy of, well, just about everyone. At the very foundation of AR is the ability to gain access to information about the physical world that is not explicitly in sight. This creates what the article calls the "creepiness" factor. The author is right when he says that "it can be frightening to think of the possibilities for invasion of privacy."
With more money and more time being invested into AR, we should push for legislation to ensure that the development of these products does not disrupt the privacy of everyday individuals and businesses. Imagine a world where someone can point a camera phone at you and gain access to your Facebook profile, name, phone number, or personal information based on face recognition gained through Augmented Reality. AR has many positive projections (like the ability to know more than meets the eye) but we must be careful and invest cautiously into the technology, making sure we protect privacy along the way.
What do you think is the best way to protect privacy in AR?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
S/R Paper 2: Neuromancer
“The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel,” (3) Neuromancer by William Gibson begins, imagining a world where the virtual and the physical collide. Gibson creates the term cyberspace, calling it “a consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of people” and predicting a dystopian world where cyberspace is an engulfing reality (51). The main character Case and character Molly Millions develop a close relationship that provides them with a shared mission to steal the consciousness of other human beings, raising the question of what it means to be human in a world where consciousness is downloadable and can be stolen and experienced by others. After investigating the identity of Armitage and revealing that he has a former identity of a Willis Corto, Gibson explores the meaning of identity in a digitized age. Case is “hungover and confused” when he discovers this, and Case asks the computer to read printed materials to him, which he says leave gaps about Armitage’s past identity (79). The blurred lines of the physical body and virtual creation become blurred in the novel, revealing a prediction of a super technological world that allows for technology to be implanted inside of the brain and for the virtual world to be experienced with the senses. Case has internal organs that are technologically enhanced. Peter Rivera, a drug addict who is able to create holographics with implanted pieces of technology inside of his brain, leads Case and Molly to an being containing artificial intelligence called Wintermute. The artificial intelligence that exists in this novel raises questions about the extent of technological creations, and whether or not they will ultimately equalize themselves to the same level of reasoning, consciousness, and emotion that human beings contain. In the close of the book, Case spends the “bulk of his Swiss account on a new pancreas and liver,” further showing Gibson’s notion of a world in which the human body and the machine are blurring together (260). In the intricacies of the plot line, Gibson is displaying a broader point: that a world that blurs the natural and virtual provides complex consequences.
With Neuromancer, Gibson spends time showing a world that is filled with artificial intelligence. 3Jane and Molly are talking in chapter 19, and 3Jane tells Molly that her father killed her mother because “she imagined us in a symbiotic relationship with AI’s, our corporate decisions made for us” (220). In Gibson’s futuristic world, artificial intelligence is a reality that is as smart as the human race, able to make decisions and make them for us. “Listen,” Case says, “that’s an AI, you know” (108)? Neuromancer explores the implications of a society heading in that direction, using the matrix as a prediction for a virtual world that allows users to become involved on a sensory level with a technologically created reality. Case feels things in the virtual world, predicting a reality that we currently live in. With the integration of the virtual experience into the physical experience, we may become involved with technology on a level that goes much deeper than simply experiencing or interacting with it. We are, like Case in the novel and like Gibson predicted, growing more involved with it. Just as Case “tried to scream” when he “jacked in” and found “nothing” but a “gray void” that contained “no cyberspace,” Gibson predicts a world in which humanity will try and scream in the absence of a virtual connection because of our dependence on it (225). Walking into a room in chapter four, Case sees booths that “lined a central hall” and were inhabited by “clientele” who were young, “few of them out of their teens” (55). Case notes that they “all seemed to have carbon sockets planted behind the left ear” (55). Gibson’s book goes to show this reality in society, that youth metaphorically have sockets in their heads, constantly plugging in to virtual outlets and constantly being plugged into by virtual mediums. Gibson blurs the lines between technology and humanity with Neuromancer, imagining a dystopia that is being realized in society today.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Neuromancer 19-24
Many of the predictions made in Neuromancer ring true today. It became apparent to me in the last section of this book that Gibson predicted the internet to be an inhabitable space, as he describes Case as he "jacks in" to the virtual world. Case can sense and experience the virtual world that he is in just as our virtual world today can be experienced on a sensory level.
I was reading an article called "Neuromancer: What It Got Right, What It Got Wrong" after I finished the book. The article can be found at the following link: http://goo.gl/8Gq00. In this article, Mark Sullivan says that "Gibson took the World Wide Web much further. By introducing the concept of cyberspace, he made the Web a habitable place, with all the world’s data stores represented as visual, even palpable, structures arranged in an endless matrix."
"Anything you want, baby," Zone drawled, "just hop it for Lonny..."
"No," Case said, "use the Finn."
As the Zone image faded....(Pg. 218).
Gibson proposes a world that contains more than just a virtual element, it posses a virtual reality that is integrated into everyday life. Case interacts with a virtual image and speaks to it, listens to it, and interacts with it.
Our world is moving more and more towards this prediction. The lines between the virtual world and the physical world are being skewed, as the virtual and the physical worlds mold into one.
And because of this expectation of virtual reality in our daily lives, when it is not there we don't really know what to do with ourselves. "Nothing. Gray void. No grid, no cyberspace...he tried to scream" (Pg. 225).
The terror that comes to Case when his virtual environment is nonexistent is fascinating. Do we, as an increasingly technological society, have this same type of reaction when our virtual outlets are offline or out of commission?
Gibson's Neuromancer may seem far-fetched, but it may not actually be that far from the truth.
I was reading an article called "Neuromancer: What It Got Right, What It Got Wrong" after I finished the book. The article can be found at the following link: http://goo.gl/8Gq00. In this article, Mark Sullivan says that "Gibson took the World Wide Web much further. By introducing the concept of cyberspace, he made the Web a habitable place, with all the world’s data stores represented as visual, even palpable, structures arranged in an endless matrix."
"Anything you want, baby," Zone drawled, "just hop it for Lonny..."
"No," Case said, "use the Finn."
As the Zone image faded....(Pg. 218).
Gibson proposes a world that contains more than just a virtual element, it posses a virtual reality that is integrated into everyday life. Case interacts with a virtual image and speaks to it, listens to it, and interacts with it.
Our world is moving more and more towards this prediction. The lines between the virtual world and the physical world are being skewed, as the virtual and the physical worlds mold into one.
And because of this expectation of virtual reality in our daily lives, when it is not there we don't really know what to do with ourselves. "Nothing. Gray void. No grid, no cyberspace...he tried to scream" (Pg. 225).
The terror that comes to Case when his virtual environment is nonexistent is fascinating. Do we, as an increasingly technological society, have this same type of reaction when our virtual outlets are offline or out of commission?
Gibson's Neuromancer may seem far-fetched, but it may not actually be that far from the truth.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Neuromanced
Gibson lives in a world that is created with the collision of the technological realm and the natural realm. His fictional tale has enormous implications for our current culture. Specifically, in chapters 1-9 I was struck by how surprising the natural world seemed to the characters who are accustomed to a technological culture.
Finn points a horse out to Case and says, "It's a horse, man. You ever seen a horse" (Pg. 88)? This seems like a ridiculous question to be asking, but in a world that sees a collision of the natural and unnatural worlds, Gibson is making a point that the natural becomes almost obscure.
The ramifications of an increasingly technological world are innumerable, and we can see them in every aspect of our lives. From our GPS systems to our social networking tools, we are seeing technology replace what used to be accomplished in strictly the natural world.
Gibson creates an illustration of this collision between the natural and virtual world by describing a scene like this:
"Rain woke him, a slow drizzle, his feet tangled in coils of discarded fiberoptics" (Pg. 113).
With the natural process of rain and the unnatural and technological object of fiberoptics, Gibson is showing us that he sees the technological world and the natural world growing together.
This leads me to my question. What kind of challenges does the integration of the natural and technological world pose to our social interactions and our social structures?
Finn points a horse out to Case and says, "It's a horse, man. You ever seen a horse" (Pg. 88)? This seems like a ridiculous question to be asking, but in a world that sees a collision of the natural and unnatural worlds, Gibson is making a point that the natural becomes almost obscure.
The ramifications of an increasingly technological world are innumerable, and we can see them in every aspect of our lives. From our GPS systems to our social networking tools, we are seeing technology replace what used to be accomplished in strictly the natural world.
Gibson creates an illustration of this collision between the natural and virtual world by describing a scene like this:
"Rain woke him, a slow drizzle, his feet tangled in coils of discarded fiberoptics" (Pg. 113).
With the natural process of rain and the unnatural and technological object of fiberoptics, Gibson is showing us that he sees the technological world and the natural world growing together.
This leads me to my question. What kind of challenges does the integration of the natural and technological world pose to our social interactions and our social structures?
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted
Recently, the popular social theorist Malcolm Gladwell published an article that essentially dismissed social media as a medium that "can't provide what social change has always required." Gladwell tracks many revolutions in history that occurred successfully without the use of Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media websites.
The article can be found on The New Yorker's website here.
Specifically, Gladwell looks at the recent revolution in Iran and dismisses social media's role in the protests. He claims that very few people had access to Twitter or Facebook in the country, and that most of the tweeting and facebooking came from those in the West.
Ultimately, Gladwell claims that social media does a good job at spreading ideas to the weak ties that we hold on the internet but it does a terrible job at involving people in high-risk activities. Gladwell also claims that social media is not effective in increasing our motivation.
Malcolm Gladwell said all of these things before the recent revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen. Critics have jumped on him for saying the things that he did because they believe that social media has been one of the most important tools for the recent uprisings.
Gladwell even posted a response to the criticism here: http://nyr.kr/ggo3aZ
I agree with Malcolm Gladwell to an extent. I think that we have given too much power to social media because it gives us the excuse to sit at our desks and sign online petitions and join Facebook Causes instead of getting on our feet and taking to the streets to raise money. As a culture, we give too much power to social media because it allows us to feel involved in joining with the citizens of Egypt through reading the Tweets of Nick Kristoff while he is on the ground there.
Social media is good for disseminating information and for asking people to do small things, but it doesn't motivate people to make huge sacrifices.
Do you take Malcolm Gladwell's position or do you think that social media is an integral part of revolutions and social change?
The article can be found on The New Yorker's website here.
Specifically, Gladwell looks at the recent revolution in Iran and dismisses social media's role in the protests. He claims that very few people had access to Twitter or Facebook in the country, and that most of the tweeting and facebooking came from those in the West.
Ultimately, Gladwell claims that social media does a good job at spreading ideas to the weak ties that we hold on the internet but it does a terrible job at involving people in high-risk activities. Gladwell also claims that social media is not effective in increasing our motivation.
Malcolm Gladwell said all of these things before the recent revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen. Critics have jumped on him for saying the things that he did because they believe that social media has been one of the most important tools for the recent uprisings.
Gladwell even posted a response to the criticism here: http://nyr.kr/ggo3aZ
I agree with Malcolm Gladwell to an extent. I think that we have given too much power to social media because it gives us the excuse to sit at our desks and sign online petitions and join Facebook Causes instead of getting on our feet and taking to the streets to raise money. As a culture, we give too much power to social media because it allows us to feel involved in joining with the citizens of Egypt through reading the Tweets of Nick Kristoff while he is on the ground there.
Social media is good for disseminating information and for asking people to do small things, but it doesn't motivate people to make huge sacrifices.
Do you take Malcolm Gladwell's position or do you think that social media is an integral part of revolutions and social change?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Respond
"The Web sets the stage for interactions between readers and writers in a way that traditional print does not," says James J. Brown in his piece Evil Bert Laden: ViRaL Texts, Community, and Collision. Brown argues that the web invites countless writers into a conversation that seems to never end. This conversation continues with every blog post, with every tweet, with every Facebook status update, and with every comment. The nature of this, however, is that multiple viewpoints and cultures and religions and traditions are placed into a single space.
Brown argues that this interaction of different backgrounds in the same space creates, as Brown cites, a 'depropriative address” that is traumatic and contaminating. It is traumatic in that it goes over our ability to comprehend and analyze information and it is contaminating because it creates a "readiness to respond that precedes desire and will."
This may not be such a bad thing. Maybe a "readiness to respond that precededs desire and will" is actually good for global and local dialogue online. Brown argues that when Westerners viewed the Ben Laden picture, they were confronted with a "trauma that called into question any clean separation between a community of 'us' against 'them.'" Reducing the clean separation between 'us' and 'them' is a good thing. Even under the context of a puppet in a video with a terrorist, we are forced to analyze the images that divide the West within itself and with other countries and cultures.
Even though the online sphere creates in us a readiness to respond without will or desire, perhaps responding may be the most important step we can take.
Does the internet truly foster an environment that is prime for new understanding through response and conversation?
Brown argues that this interaction of different backgrounds in the same space creates, as Brown cites, a 'depropriative address” that is traumatic and contaminating. It is traumatic in that it goes over our ability to comprehend and analyze information and it is contaminating because it creates a "readiness to respond that precedes desire and will."
This may not be such a bad thing. Maybe a "readiness to respond that precededs desire and will" is actually good for global and local dialogue online. Brown argues that when Westerners viewed the Ben Laden picture, they were confronted with a "trauma that called into question any clean separation between a community of 'us' against 'them.'" Reducing the clean separation between 'us' and 'them' is a good thing. Even under the context of a puppet in a video with a terrorist, we are forced to analyze the images that divide the West within itself and with other countries and cultures.
Even though the online sphere creates in us a readiness to respond without will or desire, perhaps responding may be the most important step we can take.
Does the internet truly foster an environment that is prime for new understanding through response and conversation?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
S/R Paper 1
In the introductory chapter, Henry Jenkins warns readers not to “expect the uncertainties surrounding convergence to be solved anytime soon” (24) and he uses the content of his book to present the notion that traditionally separated media outlets are becoming increasingly intertwined, assuming “all knowledge resides in humanity” (27) and that this knowledge is being virtually conglomerated through “new forms of participation and collaboration” (256). Using American Idol as an example of a television program that is representative of media as a whole, Jenkins outlines a new kind of messaging orchestrated by media companies that blurs the lines between entertainment and advertising while viewers and users are shifting “from real-time interaction towards asynchronous participation” (59). In this “new knowledge culture” (27), new virtual communities are created and defined through “voluntary, temporary, and tactical affiliations” (27). As a result of increased media convergence and as a means to keep the attention of these virtual communities, “compelling environments that cannot be fully explored or exhausted within a single work or even a single medium” (116) are created by media outlets using the concept of transmedia storytelling. In an age where a thirteen-year-old can create a website about Harry Potter to be read by millions of people, Jenkins argues that “consumer participation has emerged as the central conceptual problem” because “traditional gatekeepers want to hold onto control of cultural content” (215). Jenkins argues that these traditional gatekeepers need to release their grasp because users will be “more powerful within convergence culture, but only if they use that power as full participants in our culture” (270). In a culture where citizens are simply monitorial, perhaps the most detrimental effects can be seen in the decline of our democracy. Jenkins states that we can see beneficial democracy as an outcome of technological change, but “we need to fight to achieve [it] with every tool at our disposal” (294).
In the afterword, Jenkins discusses how the political landscape changes in “the age of YouTube” (271). When referencing the current virtual landscape, Jenkins makes the case that political participation “occurs at three levels here – those of production, selection, and distribution” (275). Using YouTube as a case study, Jenkins argues that digital media brings “all three functions together into a single platform and directs attention on the role of everyday people” (275). This statement effectively summarizes the power that convergence media has on the political process. In the 2008 presidential campaign we saw the power of participation in the virtual sphere. Impassioned supporters of Barack Obama created and contributed to virtual communities that organized people and mobilized them to successfully elect him. Digital democracy realized an apparent triumph during the 2008 presidential campaign because a large group of people got excited about participating in advocacy in online publics and they seemed to be departing from the passive mentality of merely monitoring information. Despite this, however, Jenkins argues that “an open platform does not necessarily ensure diversity” (290). Even though culture has seen a movement of people, through active participation, harness convergence media for the well being of democracy, Jenkins argues that the nature of a user-moderated virtual environment works “badly when [it] preempts the expression of minority perspective and hides unpopular and alternative content from view” (290). Online forums populated by users who are predominately for a certain position may not be open to a user who presents the opposite viewpoint. “For better and for worse,” Jenkins states, “this is what democracy looks like in the era of convergence culture” (293). With Convergence Culture, Jenkins shows the reader that “resources for activism and social commentary” are placed into “the hands of everyday citizens” (293). Now Jenkins wants us to use these resources, but he wants us to use them wisely, being “attentive to the ethical dimensions by which we are generating knowledge” (294). With our continually converging culture, “media change is bringing about transformations in the way other core institutions operate” (294). Political discourse is being shifted and molded with the convergence of culture, and Jenkins argues that we should participate.
In the afterword, Jenkins discusses how the political landscape changes in “the age of YouTube” (271). When referencing the current virtual landscape, Jenkins makes the case that political participation “occurs at three levels here – those of production, selection, and distribution” (275). Using YouTube as a case study, Jenkins argues that digital media brings “all three functions together into a single platform and directs attention on the role of everyday people” (275). This statement effectively summarizes the power that convergence media has on the political process. In the 2008 presidential campaign we saw the power of participation in the virtual sphere. Impassioned supporters of Barack Obama created and contributed to virtual communities that organized people and mobilized them to successfully elect him. Digital democracy realized an apparent triumph during the 2008 presidential campaign because a large group of people got excited about participating in advocacy in online publics and they seemed to be departing from the passive mentality of merely monitoring information. Despite this, however, Jenkins argues that “an open platform does not necessarily ensure diversity” (290). Even though culture has seen a movement of people, through active participation, harness convergence media for the well being of democracy, Jenkins argues that the nature of a user-moderated virtual environment works “badly when [it] preempts the expression of minority perspective and hides unpopular and alternative content from view” (290). Online forums populated by users who are predominately for a certain position may not be open to a user who presents the opposite viewpoint. “For better and for worse,” Jenkins states, “this is what democracy looks like in the era of convergence culture” (293). With Convergence Culture, Jenkins shows the reader that “resources for activism and social commentary” are placed into “the hands of everyday citizens” (293). Now Jenkins wants us to use these resources, but he wants us to use them wisely, being “attentive to the ethical dimensions by which we are generating knowledge” (294). With our continually converging culture, “media change is bringing about transformations in the way other core institutions operate” (294). Political discourse is being shifted and molded with the convergence of culture, and Jenkins argues that we should participate.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Literacy in the Digital Age
The definition of literacy needs to go beyond one's ability to read and write. In this day and age, an individual must pursue an understanding and an ability to participate in digital culture to become a fully literate human being. In the conclusion of Convergence Culture, Jenkins states the challenge is "not simply being able to read and write, but being able to participate in the deliberations over what issues matter" (Pg. 269). In the conclusion of this book, Jenkins makes the argument that simply being a monitorial citizen does not make a person a productive member of the media society. In our day and age, we must define literacy in terms of one's ability to read, write, and participate.
Just as Jenkins highlights in his example of CNN and YouTube partnering to broadcast a political debate centered around questions directly from citizens, our participation in media must extend into the political realm. During a class that I took last semester called Political Communication, we discussed how our overflow of information actually pressures us to be less directly involved in politics. This is the case because we oftentimes feel so involved in the political process through the media's lens that we unconsciously convince ourselves that we don't need to be a part of the voting process. In the mind of a monitorial citizen, there is no need to formulate personalized opinions because one can simply quaff the opinions of the talking heads on television and digest them for what they are without fully processing their implications.
To this end, Jenkins warns against the notion that democracy is an "inevitable outcome of technological change" (Pg. 294). In order to allow for the internet to truly blossom into its potential for a more democratic and just society, we must become conscience consumers of our media. Our media is currently full of garbled messages and frivolous information but, as Jenkins states, we are not to believe that the only true alternative is to "opt out of media altogether and live in the woods, eating acorns and lizards and reading only books published on recycled paper by small alternative presses" (Pg. 259). Instead, he challenges us to "tap media power for our own purposes" (Pg. 260). In doing so, we become literate in the light of an updated definition.
Monitorial citizenship is a temptation, but "the advent of new production tools and distribution channels have lowered barriers of entry into the marketplace of ideas" (Pg. 293). If we are to see a more politically and socially healthy society, we must neither reject virtual media altogether nor blindly grasp it fully. We must critically engage and contribute to the space, always airing on the side of skepticism while maintaining a faith in the value of collective knowledge and the power of a diverse set of ideas coinciding within a single medium.
Just as Jenkins highlights in his example of CNN and YouTube partnering to broadcast a political debate centered around questions directly from citizens, our participation in media must extend into the political realm. During a class that I took last semester called Political Communication, we discussed how our overflow of information actually pressures us to be less directly involved in politics. This is the case because we oftentimes feel so involved in the political process through the media's lens that we unconsciously convince ourselves that we don't need to be a part of the voting process. In the mind of a monitorial citizen, there is no need to formulate personalized opinions because one can simply quaff the opinions of the talking heads on television and digest them for what they are without fully processing their implications.
To this end, Jenkins warns against the notion that democracy is an "inevitable outcome of technological change" (Pg. 294). In order to allow for the internet to truly blossom into its potential for a more democratic and just society, we must become conscience consumers of our media. Our media is currently full of garbled messages and frivolous information but, as Jenkins states, we are not to believe that the only true alternative is to "opt out of media altogether and live in the woods, eating acorns and lizards and reading only books published on recycled paper by small alternative presses" (Pg. 259). Instead, he challenges us to "tap media power for our own purposes" (Pg. 260). In doing so, we become literate in the light of an updated definition.
Monitorial citizenship is a temptation, but "the advent of new production tools and distribution channels have lowered barriers of entry into the marketplace of ideas" (Pg. 293). If we are to see a more politically and socially healthy society, we must neither reject virtual media altogether nor blindly grasp it fully. We must critically engage and contribute to the space, always airing on the side of skepticism while maintaining a faith in the value of collective knowledge and the power of a diverse set of ideas coinciding within a single medium.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Casuals, Zappers, and Loyals
Henry Jenkins defines 'Zappers' as "people who constantly flit across the dial" (Pg. 74). These folks are the channel surfers and the easily-bored. They spend little time on a channel and flip across a multitude of channels. With our increased He defines 'Loyals' as "people who make long term commitments" (Pg. 74). These people are dedicated to a few shows, spend their social time talking about them, and spend less time than the general population watching television. 'Casuals' are in the middle of these two categories and are not dedicated to a series, but will watch a show start-to-finish if their is nothing better to do. They are "more apt to wander away if it starts to bore them" (Pg. 74). The book talks about how much of the 1990s was seen by analysts as a time when there was an "overstressed significance of the zappers" (Pg. 75). In this regard, humanity was seen to be always in need of instant gratification, and because of this had an inability to sit still through full television programs. It was even predicted that "there will be fewer occasions where people sit down and watch a show from beginning to end without interruptions" (Pg. 75). This prediction has proven to be false, and our current media landscape is prime for a larger amount of people who fall into the 'loyals' and 'casuals' categories instead of the 'zappers' category.
With the rise of online television sites like Hulu, single shows are offered through the streamed medium of the internet. Oftentimes it takes sitting through a 30 second commercial before the program will start, and it makes changing shows difficult and unappealing. These websites are a perfect environment for generating 'loyals' because there is a great difficulty in changing the virtual channels because of the advertisements and natural restrictions built into the system. We are faced with a cable and satellite system that offers so many channels that, to a viewer, it can be like drinking from a fire hydrant. The current landscape holds so many choices that viewers naturally look for a mental buffer to let the best and most personalized shows and programs float to the surface to be viewed.
"Industry research now suggests that 'loyals' are much more valuable than 'zappers'" (Pg. 76). This has proven to be even more true since Convergence Culture was published. The rise of web television has shown that the 'loyals' are much more valuable, because these mediums were designed with this demographic in mind.
Do you think that the greater number of channels offered to viewers inspires more people to be 'loyals' or 'zappers'? If your answer is 'loyals,' do you think that web television services like Hulu going to continue to be growing in prominence because of this reason?
With the rise of online television sites like Hulu, single shows are offered through the streamed medium of the internet. Oftentimes it takes sitting through a 30 second commercial before the program will start, and it makes changing shows difficult and unappealing. These websites are a perfect environment for generating 'loyals' because there is a great difficulty in changing the virtual channels because of the advertisements and natural restrictions built into the system. We are faced with a cable and satellite system that offers so many channels that, to a viewer, it can be like drinking from a fire hydrant. The current landscape holds so many choices that viewers naturally look for a mental buffer to let the best and most personalized shows and programs float to the surface to be viewed.
"Industry research now suggests that 'loyals' are much more valuable than 'zappers'" (Pg. 76). This has proven to be even more true since Convergence Culture was published. The rise of web television has shown that the 'loyals' are much more valuable, because these mediums were designed with this demographic in mind.
Do you think that the greater number of channels offered to viewers inspires more people to be 'loyals' or 'zappers'? If your answer is 'loyals,' do you think that web television services like Hulu going to continue to be growing in prominence because of this reason?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Cybersubculture Choices
For my comparison project, I have chosen the following social networks:
Jumo
Jumo is used by nonprofit organizations to connect people who want to get involved in activism to causes that they care about.
last.fm
This is a social media network designed around the individual music tastes of each user.
*Update -
Instead of Jumo, I will be using Google Hotpot.
Google Hotpot is a business review site that allows users to connect with friends and get recommendations based on past reviews.
Jumo
Jumo is used by nonprofit organizations to connect people who want to get involved in activism to causes that they care about.
last.fm
This is a social media network designed around the individual music tastes of each user.
*Update -
Instead of Jumo, I will be using Google Hotpot.
Google Hotpot is a business review site that allows users to connect with friends and get recommendations based on past reviews.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Collective Intelligence
Within the space found within the internet, a vast variety of humans with individual areas of expertise pull together to create one massive collaboration that forms a resource of collective intelligence useful for the community as a whole. The internet has revolutionized the way knowledge is obtained, stored, shared, and expressed. Google's latest endeavor to digitize every book ever written into an online category is further proof of this. In Chapter 1 of Convergence Culture, many thoughts are proposed about the essential nature of a collective intelligence found in our social structure. The reading argues that seeing a convergence of major media outlets and public mediums is an inherent movement in the rapid exchange of information being traded, created, and stored.
Henry Jenkins cites the media philosopher Pierre Levy by stating, "No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity" (Pg. 26). The reading goes on to say that "what we cannot know or do on our own, we may now be able to do collectively" (Pg. 27). It may be premature, but one can assume that if this book could be updated to represent our current social make up, this excerpt could end with, "we now are able to [know or do things] collectively." With the wealth of information presented within our abstract virtual world, it is incredible that individuals can access the collective intelligence of our society by merely turning on a computer screen and connecting to an internet source. Wikipedia is a phenomenal example of the "user-generated" content of the web that comes together to form somewhat of a collective intelligence resource.
The reading states that "the new knowledge culture has arisen as our ties to older forms of social community are breaking down" (Pg. 27). This point strikes a particularly relevant chord in every human that knew communication before smart phones. It certainly is a sign of the times that one can attend a movie that has historical implications and then learn more about those implications on a hand held device while they walk out of the theater. The old barriers to obtaining and contributing to a public display of collective intelligence are coming down, and our progress a society will be bother better off and worse off for it.
The internet poses a threat to the well being of our society in that it allows destructive ideas to be transmitted to a broader audience. If they are distributed enough, they may become a part of the shared knowledge that Jenkins refers to. This shared knowledge is beliefs that a group believes to be shared by all. "Misinformation can lead to more and more misconceptions," Jenkins says, and "any new insight is read against what the group believes to be core knowledge" (Pg. 28).
The information we consume and contribute in public mediums must be checked and held accountable lest we find misinformation wiggling its way into our core knowledge. Allowing this to happen allows us to skew the way we perceive the world to include a dangerous perspective.
Henry Jenkins cites the media philosopher Pierre Levy by stating, "No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity" (Pg. 26). The reading goes on to say that "what we cannot know or do on our own, we may now be able to do collectively" (Pg. 27). It may be premature, but one can assume that if this book could be updated to represent our current social make up, this excerpt could end with, "we now are able to [know or do things] collectively." With the wealth of information presented within our abstract virtual world, it is incredible that individuals can access the collective intelligence of our society by merely turning on a computer screen and connecting to an internet source. Wikipedia is a phenomenal example of the "user-generated" content of the web that comes together to form somewhat of a collective intelligence resource.
The reading states that "the new knowledge culture has arisen as our ties to older forms of social community are breaking down" (Pg. 27). This point strikes a particularly relevant chord in every human that knew communication before smart phones. It certainly is a sign of the times that one can attend a movie that has historical implications and then learn more about those implications on a hand held device while they walk out of the theater. The old barriers to obtaining and contributing to a public display of collective intelligence are coming down, and our progress a society will be bother better off and worse off for it.
The internet poses a threat to the well being of our society in that it allows destructive ideas to be transmitted to a broader audience. If they are distributed enough, they may become a part of the shared knowledge that Jenkins refers to. This shared knowledge is beliefs that a group believes to be shared by all. "Misinformation can lead to more and more misconceptions," Jenkins says, and "any new insight is read against what the group believes to be core knowledge" (Pg. 28).
The information we consume and contribute in public mediums must be checked and held accountable lest we find misinformation wiggling its way into our core knowledge. Allowing this to happen allows us to skew the way we perceive the world to include a dangerous perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)