I have no sympathy for Andrew Keen and his disdain for the cultural changes that came with the rise of "Web 2.0" and the destruction of all of the gatekeepers and other less-than-necessary intermediaries that long ago turned cancerous when they ceased to be useful elements of a community and became self-important seekers of domination and control.
The very "cult of the amateur" Keen attack and derides is the historical norm for all human cultures, "primitive" and "civilized" alike. What Keen fails to acknowledge is that even the so-called "experts" far too often are just making it up as they go, either because they are at the edge of their competency and have to make it up because there is no better way to employ what they can of their expertise or (far more common) they are actually incompetent and are masking that fact with bluster as they fake it until they make it.
The vast majority of artists, of all media, are amateurs. Very few ever got paid at all, and most of those that did literally or figuratively sang for their supper. The so-called "great writers", by and large, were amateurs and those that could be called "professional" were actually the same hacks that Keen disdains so much; Keen avoids acknowledging (for example) that much of what Shakespeare got paid to write he wrote on commission, and wrote for a popular audience no less crass and vulgar in sensibilities (and considerably more violent) than today. Friedrich Schiller was an amateur, no less skilled than Shakespeare or Goethe, and wrote when not practicing medicine. Beethoven had patrons, as did many of the great Renaissance artists; otherwise, no art would come, as they could not get paid as today's creatives do.
Keen also fails to acknowledge the then-burgeoning business in legitimate downloads for music, which would explode into all forms of media that one can read, watch or listen to on computers and mobile devices. This spread into the rise of Print On Demand (for the physical-only holdouts like myself) outlets such as Lulu and Smashwords, and as for the user-generated stuff like YouTube one need only look at FPSRussia to see how it can be a comfortable and pleasant way to make a living. (That man's income is easily mid-to-high five figures just from what YouTube shares with him in advertising income; he also sells his own swag and makes commercial appearances now, and he's not the biggest success story.)
Far from being the herald of the fall of Civilization, Keen's "cult of the amateur" is in reality the unfettering of a marketplace wherein all that want to participate may do so on their terms. This horror show that Keen calls "anarchy" is nothing of the sort; it is, in reality, the Adult Swim of life wherein busybody authoritarians have no sway anymore because their Big Daddy tendencies--noticing Keen's assumption of minor-like incompetency to make one's own decisions that authoritarians typically make; it's a running theme throughout his writing here--turn people off. He can't compete in a truly free market, and he resents it; this is his "sour grapes" reaction, and I take it as such.
The amateurs I follow have, over time, increased their competency and capacity for greater quality until they reach professional-grade work on a hobbyist's budget. From the other direction, professionals see what can be done on the cheap and have come in to show the amateurs how its done--witness Felicia Day's "The Guild", now on the Geek & Sundry channel at YouTube, or Chris Hardwick's "Nerdist" podcast--and the results are an increasing tide of quality as an increasing spread of amateurs take notice and raise their game accordingly.
The days of gatekeeper-corralled professionalist culture creation is done. We're now returning to a state where people develop their own talents when, where, and how they see fit; all things like YouTube and Lulu do is spread the possible audience from the hometown and surrounding county to the globe. As for the industrial culture giants, they too can and will adapt; Keen published this book in 2007, and one year later the first Iron Man movie--no doubt a "proper professional product"--hit screens and won over the world, ushering in the Marvel Movie Universe and marking Disney's big return to live-action blockbuster cinema. That trend continues to gain ground, as we see with Warner Brothers attempting to do the same thing with the D.C. Comics properties that they own starting with Man of Steel.
Keen should realize that (a) he's wrong, and (b) he's lost this fight forever now. Go home, Andy. We don't need your authoritarian approach to culture, and we don't want it.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
INTERNET
Is the Internet the utopia
people say it is, or is it a bleak look at reality that showcases the ugliness
of reality? Can I, as a Black person, roam the web freely with
No fear of prejudice or
retribution? Will this new world accept me for who I am or try and change me,
stereotype me, accuse me of once again being
The reason you cannot
succeed? Will it showcase the injustices that are perpetrated daily? Will it
shed a light on the things that are so obvious to me? Will it
Even out the score and
make for us an even playing field? Sadly, I have realized that it won’t.
Because what comes from the internet is truth-truth of who we
Really are- and it’s a stinging
truth. A slap you in your face truth, a not talk behind you back- but to your
face truth. A constant reminder that the need to hate has
Not subsided and the quest
for equality is far from over. The internet shows us we have a ways to go-quite
a ways to go before America can and will open its eyes.
Even a Black President
could not bring us to the promise land, as his presidency has prompted racist
chants to ring freely and often through the net. I am hopeful that
Time is on our side and the
infamous “one day” will arrive and I can surf the net free of hate, free of prejudice,
with only the judgment of my character at stake.Friday, November 30, 2012
Don't Hate the (Social) Media. Become the (Social) Media!
The social media technology, as with Internet technologies in general, is a double-edged tool. It is certainly true, because it is known, that governments and corporations use social media to surveil populations. The motivations vary, but the means are the same. However, the population can also surveil corporations and governments using this same technology if they possess the skill and tools to do so. It is this factor that makes the difference.
This is not theory. In addition to earlier examples, the most recent examples of how this technology's power can be used against trusts public (government) and private (corporations) alike that get out of line--Iran, Egypt, Libya, and now Syria; Wal Mart will soon find out how it feels--demonstrates that the former dogma of the State being the sole legitimate exerciser of force is starting to decay.
In each of the above cases, dissidents against those respective states used networking technology--especially social media--to organize amongst themselves as well as to monitor the State. The governments in question then attempted to regain control by disconnecting the country from the Internet; Syria just did this yesterday, allegedly. However, in each case--including the Syria one--corporations such as Google and plenty of individuals intervened and established backup infrastructure that restored function to most of the blacked-out population. (This, in addition to people congregating into places such as Tahrir Square in Egypt; it's easy to spread the word when you're in one place.)
We are already in a place where opting out is socially detrimental to individuals; soon we shall cross the threshold where opting out is economically detrimental due to ongoing changes in the economy--global and local--that make opting out not-viable to pursue, and not long thereafter it will cease to be politically detrimental.
Social opt-outs get cut out of peer lives, as organization of social gatherings increasingly takes place on social media exclusively; if you're not a user, you don't get the invites and soon you are off others' radar entirely- out of sight, so out of mind. Employers use social media to make personnel decisions, starting from hiring and going on from there; if you can't be found, then you can't be trusted, so you don't get the job or promotion. As with employment, so will be the case for other organizations when seeking positions of trust within them. People do this because it is efficient shorthand, and efficiency is prized by all of the global first world.
This leads to the economic consequences. The mail order business of 20 years ago is the online retailer of today, and online commerce of all sorts has so seized control of the minds of economists, businessmen and politicians that a technological momentum is now in place. This force pushes for greater online dominance of the marketplace, and with it comes the dominance of social media--specifically, its personalization algorithms--to advertise, to collect feedback, and to maximize profit. Opt-outs will be left behind, and as more retail storefronts either vanish or become nothing more than showrooms where you can make online purchases after handling a sample item, this means that opt-outs will get shut out.
This also means that money will become increasingly digital, nothing more than bits in a file executed according to a program's parameters. Checks are already well on their way out, and cash is already under pressure to likewise disappear, leaving only digital banking; expect this trend to continue, with government and corporate support, with the consequence being that having your accounts frozen also freezes you out of the ability to buy or sell altogether- and, as with being searched, getting frozen is determined by someone else for reasons that can be quite different from the ones stated. (The State is explicitly allowed to lie to suspects.)
If you cannot effectively engage in social affairs, or participate in commerce, then your ability to deal in politics is nothing more than an empty claim with no power to support it. Real power is always the basis of political power, as those with neither social nor commercial substance--the poor and downtrodden--know too well. (Politics, remember, is warfare without the killing and dying.)
The governments of the world see this as the emerging reality; that's why there's so much effort made to fetter the Internet--SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, Great Firewall, etc.--at the national and international level; they know that the technology is now emerging to make national governments, and international bodies, obsolete. That's why crude attempts, such as those aforementioned, to disconnect from the Internet get made. That's why corporations with obsolete business models--MPAA, RIAA--push so hard for controls on network technologies. That's why there's going to be some heinous cyber-attack, blamed on Anonymous, done as a False-Flag operation by one or more of these governments in the near future; they want to do an Internet 9/11 to scare people into closing the only frontier left to us and turn online life into another free-range prison. There is nowhere to run or hide; opting out just means you get put on the train later. The only effective option is to get in, get mastery, and use the tools to defend yourself and keep your freedom.
Opting out, therefore, is not a viable option. The consequences, though they seem light and infrequent now, shall only increase in frequency and severity as days go by and our network technologies become deeply entrenched into the global structure of power and control that is our world's reality. Instead, the viable option is to engage and master both the theories behind the tools and the tools themselves.
To quote Ambassador Kosh (of Babylon 5): "The avalanche has begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
This is not theory. In addition to earlier examples, the most recent examples of how this technology's power can be used against trusts public (government) and private (corporations) alike that get out of line--Iran, Egypt, Libya, and now Syria; Wal Mart will soon find out how it feels--demonstrates that the former dogma of the State being the sole legitimate exerciser of force is starting to decay.
In each of the above cases, dissidents against those respective states used networking technology--especially social media--to organize amongst themselves as well as to monitor the State. The governments in question then attempted to regain control by disconnecting the country from the Internet; Syria just did this yesterday, allegedly. However, in each case--including the Syria one--corporations such as Google and plenty of individuals intervened and established backup infrastructure that restored function to most of the blacked-out population. (This, in addition to people congregating into places such as Tahrir Square in Egypt; it's easy to spread the word when you're in one place.)
We are already in a place where opting out is socially detrimental to individuals; soon we shall cross the threshold where opting out is economically detrimental due to ongoing changes in the economy--global and local--that make opting out not-viable to pursue, and not long thereafter it will cease to be politically detrimental.
Social opt-outs get cut out of peer lives, as organization of social gatherings increasingly takes place on social media exclusively; if you're not a user, you don't get the invites and soon you are off others' radar entirely- out of sight, so out of mind. Employers use social media to make personnel decisions, starting from hiring and going on from there; if you can't be found, then you can't be trusted, so you don't get the job or promotion. As with employment, so will be the case for other organizations when seeking positions of trust within them. People do this because it is efficient shorthand, and efficiency is prized by all of the global first world.
This leads to the economic consequences. The mail order business of 20 years ago is the online retailer of today, and online commerce of all sorts has so seized control of the minds of economists, businessmen and politicians that a technological momentum is now in place. This force pushes for greater online dominance of the marketplace, and with it comes the dominance of social media--specifically, its personalization algorithms--to advertise, to collect feedback, and to maximize profit. Opt-outs will be left behind, and as more retail storefronts either vanish or become nothing more than showrooms where you can make online purchases after handling a sample item, this means that opt-outs will get shut out.
This also means that money will become increasingly digital, nothing more than bits in a file executed according to a program's parameters. Checks are already well on their way out, and cash is already under pressure to likewise disappear, leaving only digital banking; expect this trend to continue, with government and corporate support, with the consequence being that having your accounts frozen also freezes you out of the ability to buy or sell altogether- and, as with being searched, getting frozen is determined by someone else for reasons that can be quite different from the ones stated. (The State is explicitly allowed to lie to suspects.)
If you cannot effectively engage in social affairs, or participate in commerce, then your ability to deal in politics is nothing more than an empty claim with no power to support it. Real power is always the basis of political power, as those with neither social nor commercial substance--the poor and downtrodden--know too well. (Politics, remember, is warfare without the killing and dying.)
The governments of the world see this as the emerging reality; that's why there's so much effort made to fetter the Internet--SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, Great Firewall, etc.--at the national and international level; they know that the technology is now emerging to make national governments, and international bodies, obsolete. That's why crude attempts, such as those aforementioned, to disconnect from the Internet get made. That's why corporations with obsolete business models--MPAA, RIAA--push so hard for controls on network technologies. That's why there's going to be some heinous cyber-attack, blamed on Anonymous, done as a False-Flag operation by one or more of these governments in the near future; they want to do an Internet 9/11 to scare people into closing the only frontier left to us and turn online life into another free-range prison. There is nowhere to run or hide; opting out just means you get put on the train later. The only effective option is to get in, get mastery, and use the tools to defend yourself and keep your freedom.
Opting out, therefore, is not a viable option. The consequences, though they seem light and infrequent now, shall only increase in frequency and severity as days go by and our network technologies become deeply entrenched into the global structure of power and control that is our world's reality. Instead, the viable option is to engage and master both the theories behind the tools and the tools themselves.
To quote Ambassador Kosh (of Babylon 5): "The avalanche has begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Panopticism Privacy
Some thoughts about privacy and Panopticism:
In the assertions by Jeremy Bentham related to the panopticon, he relies on an "unseen" authority that the observed never knows is or isn't watching, AND the ability all others being observed to observe each other. I don't know that we are at the point of being observed in our homes, but if we are, the observers remain secret (in the tower, so to speak) and it is not the case that everyone sees everyone else (yet) which is an important feature of Bentham's idea - at least as it applies to prisoners.
Often we are told that surveillance constrains us, or that we are forced to be compliant with some sort of accepted norm because we can be seen. This assertion presupposes that there is a behavior inherent in our unique character that we keep secret from others, either because we believe it would be harshly judged or because we believe there is something wrong with it.
From a UK report on "The Surveillance Society"
"Surveillance is two-sided, and its benefits must be acknowledged. Yet at the same time risks and dangers are always present in large-scale systems and of course power does corrupt or at least skews the vision of those who wield it. "
Most of us who are critical of this kind of surveillance would like to be free to behave as we wish in private without being afraid of someone using our behavior against us some time in the future. The theory goes, that these behaviors become constrained because we don't want anyone (either authorities or our neighbors) to know about them.
But could there be a different consequence of a community mutually seeing and being seen in this way? Could mutual seeing lead to acceptance of each other and ourselves for our common and all too human divergences from imagined or implanted ideals?
This is a possible consequence not often discussed, and I find it interesting.
Is Neo-Amish-ism Even Possible?
After mulling over our readings for this week, one line kept coming back to me: "It's not just how we use the technology that concerns us. We're also concerned about what kind of people we become when we use it" (185). Yup.
It appears as though the current powers that be are trying to use technology to uphold the status quo. They "become a threat to liberty as well as dignity when they give one person or group power to constrain the behavior of others (188). Well, in some ways, is this not already happening? We have put so much of our lives online and are giving power to corporation to profile us (ads, etc.). Freedom of Information is being restricted--web publications can be censored by government (see my Mermaid post...). The control of knowledge/power is being manipulated in new ways because of technology. And, we accept regulations etc, as part of normal thinking & behavior (189).
I am less worried with people treating others as machines than I am simply people not knowing how to interact with other people, period. I despise when people continually text others while I am having a conversation with them. And some of these people think it's no big deal--just multi-tasking, or new social protocols. Bullshit. It's rude, plain and simple. If "our artifacts [are] in the information age, but our biology is still prehistoric" (192), then we have a problem. Evolution takes time. Our biology simply can't catch up that quick--and neither, then, will our mental/social skills.
And, those who don't have access then end up farther divided from "the rest of the world" unless we continue the old acts of colonization in new ways.
Though I am not particularly a proponent of colonization, could that not be what humanity needs to make its next evolutionary leap (that is, OLPC on some level)? If we continue to act as separate beings based on place and culture, we will never move forward. Culture changes as it gains more knowledge; to keep knowledge in "Western" hands is to keep power in Western hands. But to "force" it on others is to colonize. What kind of people do they become when using it? What kind of people do we become by "making" them use it?
Basically, we are in the middle of a pretty profound paradigm shift. Sadly, that means, eventually, some people are going to get left behind, and some cultures may "die." And yet, this happens to other species all the time. Humans are a species, and are not immune to the laws of evolution. To preserve ourselves--and our cultures--there needs to be some level of adaptation. Though, I am certainly scared of the direction this could take, and worry for the future of those who choose to not partake of technology. I feel like that could open them up to what I will call "techgenocide."
It appears as though the current powers that be are trying to use technology to uphold the status quo. They "become a threat to liberty as well as dignity when they give one person or group power to constrain the behavior of others (188). Well, in some ways, is this not already happening? We have put so much of our lives online and are giving power to corporation to profile us (ads, etc.). Freedom of Information is being restricted--web publications can be censored by government (see my Mermaid post...). The control of knowledge/power is being manipulated in new ways because of technology. And, we accept regulations etc, as part of normal thinking & behavior (189).
I am less worried with people treating others as machines than I am simply people not knowing how to interact with other people, period. I despise when people continually text others while I am having a conversation with them. And some of these people think it's no big deal--just multi-tasking, or new social protocols. Bullshit. It's rude, plain and simple. If "our artifacts [are] in the information age, but our biology is still prehistoric" (192), then we have a problem. Evolution takes time. Our biology simply can't catch up that quick--and neither, then, will our mental/social skills.
And, those who don't have access then end up farther divided from "the rest of the world" unless we continue the old acts of colonization in new ways.
Though I am not particularly a proponent of colonization, could that not be what humanity needs to make its next evolutionary leap (that is, OLPC on some level)? If we continue to act as separate beings based on place and culture, we will never move forward. Culture changes as it gains more knowledge; to keep knowledge in "Western" hands is to keep power in Western hands. But to "force" it on others is to colonize. What kind of people do they become when using it? What kind of people do we become by "making" them use it?
Basically, we are in the middle of a pretty profound paradigm shift. Sadly, that means, eventually, some people are going to get left behind, and some cultures may "die." And yet, this happens to other species all the time. Humans are a species, and are not immune to the laws of evolution. To preserve ourselves--and our cultures--there needs to be some level of adaptation. Though, I am certainly scared of the direction this could take, and worry for the future of those who choose to not partake of technology. I feel like that could open them up to what I will call "techgenocide."
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Smart Mobs: Revolutions or Bust
Always being connected does make us vulnerable to additional surveilance and renders us less powerful, though if we "use what we now know about cooperation to drive power/ knowledge to a higher level of democracy (190)" , we as a whole can strengthened democracy and perhap lessen the effects of surveilance or at least curb what is to come.
This is a crucial time in our history with concern to technology. The decision being made in government prompted by: cable companies, telephone companies, the movie industry and Internet inventors will effect us and our liberties for a long time to come. These corporations are moving to control who can build future technology on the Internet and what kinds of technology they can create. Hollywood movie studios, (through the guise of protecting intellectual property), are pushing legislation for "protection devices", that will give corporations the right to shut down any phone or computers that is said to be viewing material they deem copy written.
Americans have "voluntarily traded privacy for convenience (186)" and will soon trade their liberties for access if restrictions are imposed and we are turned from "users into passive consumers (202)". But for those who are watching the watchers, they will help decide whether smart mobs grow or dissappear.
Rheingold suggest that cooperation is an inate human trait and that us working together is almost ineveitable (212). "When certain technologies emerge", say Rheingold, "(it) can trigger human societies to reorganize at a higher level of cooperation (213)".
Smart mob activity, collective action, increased knowledge and social dynamics could possibly improve the way billions of people live. "Mobile communications, peer computing, location awarness, social accounting systems and pervasive computing (190)" have the potential to encourage cooperation far more than previous technologies.
Rheingold.(2002). Always-On Panopticon… or Cooperation Amplifier.Smart Mobs.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Does Education Really Lead to Critical Thinking?
Many of us in class have eluded to the fact that education brings about critical thinking skills and the ability to shuffle through the BS and get to the truth. We have suggested that if you are getting an education; you will have more information, more tools to decipher and analyze information, more ways to evaluate information, and more open and aware thinking-which leads to less prejudice.
This video sadly dismisses these theories- as education seems to play very little in the thought process of the making of this video. Coming from a Duluth University campus, this video shows nothing but bad taste, bad judgment and some may say- bad up bringing and education, not to mention bad moral character.
Instead of a "like" icon, we could use a "slap" icon for this video!
The video contains profanity, (which shouldn't be any different from class:), the "N" word and host of mean, racist language.To view the video click the link instead of the video prompt-as YouTube has removed it from their site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)