I came across an article online that asked the question, "is Virtual Life Better Than Reality"? Initially I began to think about online identity. Online identity appears to be fluid. We can manage our image easier than in the real world. We can be one way while interacting with 'friends' on Facebook, another on Twitter, and yet another on a blog. All may contain components of ourselves, and we are not constricted by physical appearance.
Then, I began thinking about what Brad said in class, that all of these interactions are connected. So the social capital we create and use through genuine interactions seems to be more complex. We do not compartmentalize our selves, but maintain a consistent version of self.
I then thought that social capital is not only important for our identity online, but offline as well. Meaning that the social capital we create online is the same as that we create offline, and it moves between the two spheres. As well as the consequences that result from our interactions. If we post, say or respond to something on Facebook, it will most likely follow us into our other online spaces, as well as off.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Monkeys With Typewriters
OK, so for those of you who missed my read & lead, I found these two little videos apropos of the topic from Keen:
The above is short and funny. This next is a little more what this post is about:
Now, the video is talking about monkeys on typewriters from the perspective of proving if there is a god. However, that is not the point for this post. The point is about Keen's fear that democratization of the web will lead to, basically, a bunch of shit on the internet, produced by a bunch of idiots who only appreciate the crap from other morons, until there is nothing but fecal matter to be found online.
I admit: I am inclined to agree with him. To a point. However, the internet has also been a very useful tool, in my experience. And, he was writing in 2006. Have things necessarily panned out the way he predicted? It wouldn't seem so.
The video, in relation to Keen's theory, is a pretty good refutation OR acceptance. It could accept Keen's theory if you believe that there are a bunch of people (monkeys) on typewriters spewing a bunch of crap that makes its way to the internet, and nothing important (twaddle, though perhaps not downright incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo) is being said. Yep. I'll admit: there is a lot of inane crap to be found online.
However, it could also be a good way to refute Keen's idea. If infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters can NOT produce anything that even remotely resembles a sonnet, then there is no way for "monkeys" (read: idiots) to truly take over the internet. There are still intelligent people out there producing content. A sonnet still needs an intelligent author. There are still academicians and an educated minority in our society. And it appears that more people than Keen would have supposed are savvy enough to distinguish shit from Shineola.
The nature of gatekeepers has simply seemed to change. There are still the authorities. An article posted by the Mayo Clinic will be taken more seriously than JoeSchmoe's posting about his arthritis. All this being said...I still see Keen's point. It's pretty sad that you can just as easily (if not more so) find information about the latest Justin Bieber gossip as you can the latest update on Iraq...and not everyone has--or wants--critical thinking skills. That's what scares me half to death...
The above is short and funny. This next is a little more what this post is about:
I admit: I am inclined to agree with him. To a point. However, the internet has also been a very useful tool, in my experience. And, he was writing in 2006. Have things necessarily panned out the way he predicted? It wouldn't seem so.
The video, in relation to Keen's theory, is a pretty good refutation OR acceptance. It could accept Keen's theory if you believe that there are a bunch of people (monkeys) on typewriters spewing a bunch of crap that makes its way to the internet, and nothing important (twaddle, though perhaps not downright incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo) is being said. Yep. I'll admit: there is a lot of inane crap to be found online.
However, it could also be a good way to refute Keen's idea. If infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters can NOT produce anything that even remotely resembles a sonnet, then there is no way for "monkeys" (read: idiots) to truly take over the internet. There are still intelligent people out there producing content. A sonnet still needs an intelligent author. There are still academicians and an educated minority in our society. And it appears that more people than Keen would have supposed are savvy enough to distinguish shit from Shineola.
The nature of gatekeepers has simply seemed to change. There are still the authorities. An article posted by the Mayo Clinic will be taken more seriously than JoeSchmoe's posting about his arthritis. All this being said...I still see Keen's point. It's pretty sad that you can just as easily (if not more so) find information about the latest Justin Bieber gossip as you can the latest update on Iraq...and not everyone has--or wants--critical thinking skills. That's what scares me half to death...
Telephone Game
I can honestly say this course has forced me to like at myself in a different light. No one will say I am shy about expressing my feelings or opinions. If "shame" was apart of our genetic coding, I admit that I am missing that gene. As a preacher's kid, I speak my words with convention. Yet, when social media is in place... silence fills the digital space. When it seems that others exaggerate themselves online or remove any barriers to whom they identify themselves to be offline I exhibit the opposite behavior.
In Las Vegas, visitors carry themselves in wild, crazed ways, encouraged by the lively Vegas atmosphere, compared to their demeanor in their home town around family, friends, and/or co-workers. However, for myself in Vegas, I become a nun while my hometown identity is a Vegas showgirl.
As I think about it, I enjoy hearing people talk about my strange, adventurous antics like folklore. Posting things online conjure up thoughts of all my actions, moments, thoughts being filed for future review or research like the many books in a library.
The beautiful essence of the childhood game "telephone" was the funny interpretations of simple statements being shared to each person in the telephone line. At the end an elaborate story emerged being more entertaining then the original statement. Posting everything online erases the art of storytelling, engaging in the excitement brought by the storyteller.
It is hard to edit a story once its been printed in a book.
Knowledge = Power
An acknowledgment of knowledge = power in context to our discussion of a panopticon place was revealed by a very unlikely source.
I was cleaning the house the other day while the living room television was tuned to Investigation Discovery. The typical story was of some criminal who for a long time eluded capture. He was being interviewed afterward from prison and revealed that each time he planned to commit a crime, he checked the weather channel to make sure that heavy fog was predicted. Among a laundry list of precautions he took, one was to make him as invisible to detection as possible. He stated his assumption that he would be in view of a camera, and possibly watched from helicopters above.
While he was aware of the possibility of detection, it did not deter him, but only made him react in ways that countered the deterrence. So, the power shifted to him from being aware he may be perceived, and took precautions not to be.
Other criminal organizations are reacting similarly. Mexican cartels have kidnapped and enslaved engineers in order for them to build radio networks. These networks were developed to aid in communications among the organization without being detected by the police.
It appears that criminals are convinced technology has all eyes on them. However, instead of discipline, the criminals are reacting with strategies to outsmart the technologies set to deter them.
I was cleaning the house the other day while the living room television was tuned to Investigation Discovery. The typical story was of some criminal who for a long time eluded capture. He was being interviewed afterward from prison and revealed that each time he planned to commit a crime, he checked the weather channel to make sure that heavy fog was predicted. Among a laundry list of precautions he took, one was to make him as invisible to detection as possible. He stated his assumption that he would be in view of a camera, and possibly watched from helicopters above.
While he was aware of the possibility of detection, it did not deter him, but only made him react in ways that countered the deterrence. So, the power shifted to him from being aware he may be perceived, and took precautions not to be.
Other criminal organizations are reacting similarly. Mexican cartels have kidnapped and enslaved engineers in order for them to build radio networks. These networks were developed to aid in communications among the organization without being detected by the police.
It appears that criminals are convinced technology has all eyes on them. However, instead of discipline, the criminals are reacting with strategies to outsmart the technologies set to deter them.
Dude, where's my car?
A confession. So, about three years ago I was at a local bar and had one too many drinks. Being the responsible gal I am, I do not drink and drive. However, when a sober friend of mind offered to drive my car home for me, I appreciatively agreed. Two key facts- one, I left earlier than my friend, (we did not ride together). Two, my generous friend did not realize when he offered his services that I had a manual shift. Therefore, after a short distance he gave up and safely parked my car in a commercial parking lot.
Fast-forward to the next morning. I woke up and in a clear state of mind asked my boyfriend to bring me to my car. First, I had to call my friend from the previous night to find out where he had left my vehicle. Oh, but where is my phone? I must have left it in my car. Bummer, I do not have a way to reach my friend. Another bummer, where is my car? As I cannot reach my friend, I do not know where my car was parked. I know the general route he must have taken, but he could have pulled over at any point during the fifteen minutes it took to get to my house. Aimlessly driving, my last option.
So, I put some thought into solving this problem. My phone was most likely in my car. I happen to have the Sprint family locator on my phone. I went online and Sprint could give me the exact location where I had left my phone. After I figured out where my phone was, I google mapped that location and viewed recent satellite images. I happily saw my car parked in a parking lot about five minutes from the bar. My boyfriend drove me to that location and as i got into my car I was grateful for once to have left my phone behind.
The technology involved made this unique situation much more easy to resolve. However, it does make you think about the capacity to see without being seen that this technology allows us. While I was very happy to be able to find my car, it is frightening to think that anyone else could access this information. It was only necessary for me to access my Sprint account to get this image of my location. This real life experience has left me feeling the potential power created by the effects of the panopticon available from this technology.
Your Authoritarianism is Showing Mr. Keen
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)