13 thoughts on “Week 13 – The New Politics of Knowledge (T1)”
Kaede Lim
NIcholas Carr talks about how ‘the net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit of most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.’ I think this speaks of the universality and remediation of various mediums into the internet. Yet he questions the ‘freeness’ of information on the internet by highlighting the fact that it comes at the price of our attention and ability to focus. In this sense, the hypermediacy and multiplicity of the functions of the internet not only detaches people from each other but also detaches us from ourselves by hindering our physical and mental capability to efficiently analyse and absorb information. Likewise, Lovink questions the ‘freeness’ of information on the internet. The freedom or ‘freeness’ of the internet is merely and illusion, we are still being tracked and followed by groups that are driven by market interests. We gain information at the cost of our own information. There is also the notion of metaculture in Lanier’s work . Sites like google are not all knowing but in fact also function by collecting information generated by other people or groups, it is merely a medium through which we can the organised information that is online.
M Priyanka Nair
Nicholas Carr writes about our diminishing attention span and inability to function without technology, and this seems like a very obvious backwash of the technological developments, but it’s still really scary to think about just how much the way we use our brains has changed. He mentions that the debate about the topic does mention that the internet has allowed users to read more, just that it’s a different sort of reading. It is true, that the internet has allowed us to be so much more well-read than even just our parents’ generation – there is no denying that the kids of today seem to be getting smarter, and seem to be developing smarter mouths along with this. But if we take a step back and look at the other side of the debate, it seems pretty terrifying how parts of our brains that have been trained from young have started to shut down, and very quickly too, along with the speed of technological advancements. Not only has our attention spans diminished to the point where we spend most of our time findings summaries of summaries of readings or texts instead of reading the original piece, but many other simple tasks seem to be difficult to accomplish now. Honestly, it took me an unnecessarily long time to work out the “math captcha” equations that are required just to post these comments and this is because we’re so used to technology helping us calculate everything. Technology undoubtedly offsets labour and in more simplistic terms, speeds up our learning and every other process, but at the expense of our own brains being slower on their own. Whether Google, or any other technology, is “Making Us Stupid” or not, our reliance on technology today is definitely a completely different relation to machinery as it used to be just 20 years ago.
Similarly, Wolf, in Carr’s article, mentions that humans are not instinctively skilled to read and speech is far more natural than needing to translate the textual symbols “into the language we understand”. I never thought about it this way, and yet it really does seem true. Which then makes me wonder if it’s really ever my fault for not being able to finish my readings on time.
Lucy Molloy
The new politics of knowledge is encompassed in the on-going debate about the sources of information and the associated rights that are attributed to them.
For media theorists, the biggest debate engulfing the Global North/West/’Developed’ world at present is rights to knowledge and sharing information via online platforms.
The turn of phrase ‘Wikileaks’ is a clear signifier of the not new but far more public trend of whistle blowing and active attempts to redistribute power from political institutions to the wider public.
Key themes are
Privacy
Transparency
Knowledge
Data
Licensing
Distribution
Access
Surveillance
Intrusion
Power
Control
The politics of ownership are key to the future of media and mediums.
The nodal point of this debate is the degree to which individual citizens should put due trust in governmental organisations to insure their security and welfare.
At the University of Glasgow in the United Kingdom, the rector (an independent adult who is nominated and elected solely by the student body and has the power to call senate) has just been elected. They will serve the student body campaigning for the rights and giving them due representation on the issues that matter the most. The candidate that was chosen was Edward Snowden.
You can read the coverage of his formal installation below:
“I’m disappointed that I couldn’t attend in person. But unfortunately I’ve discovered that I’m barred from entering the United Kingdom, on the grounds that my presence is considered detrimental to the public good. I think it’s fair to say that the election shows that the students of this University have a different take. I’m honoured to find that that is the case. In fact, I find it a great honour to be part of this today.
And gives a lot of food for thought, in regards to the future of governance, and the power that we vest in corporations and state institutions.
P.S. Shout outs to anyone who’s reading this, asides from the tutors, jaiyou for your finals!
Tham E-lyn
In Digital Maoism, Lanier juxtaposes the medium of Wikipedia against MySpace. Having used both of them, I have some opinions regarding each.
Wikipedia has proven to be a very useful resource, whenever I want to read more about an author, a novel, a movie, or even a theory, I immediately Wikipedia it to get a rough idea. It gives rather comprehensive descriptions which more or less cater to what I’m looking for. However, whenever I use Wikipedia, there’s a nagging suspicion at the back of my mind to not fully believe whatever I read. This is due to Wikipedia’s editing function, which allows people to edit the content on the pages as and when they wish. This is why professors caution us that Wikipedia is not counted as a reliable resource – its content is malleable and cannot be guaranteed to be completely truthful. I suppose the editing function accords the reader a form of agency, knowing that the content is entirely up to him/her. Yet, this giving of agency to the consumer somehow robs us of a resource that would otherwise prove to be immensely useful – all facets of information about a certain subject all condensed into a page. This made me question whether the granting of agency to consumers is always a good thing.
MySpace, like Friendster, is slowly phasing out. What was most attractive about MySpace was the ability to tweak the HTML, to customize your page to reflect your personality. Like Wikipedia, agency is given to the consumers. Consumers now assume the dual role of producers as well, contributing to the content that circulates in the virtual world. Yet, despite this, MySpace has given way to a whole new social media platform (FaceBook). Unlike MySpace, Facebook does not allow you to customise your layout of your profile, the comments and the box for friends and photos are items that are standardised across users. Although users can choose cover photos (photos that cover the top of the profile), it’s sort of like agency is limited, and not completely given to consumers as in the case of MySpace. Facebook now trumps Myspace in popularity, once again posing the question of whether granting full agency/autonomy to consumers will prove to be a good thing in the long run.
rebecca quek
This week’s readings focus on the effects of web 2.0, and social media websites, uncovering both political and psychological effects. While Levy is much more positive about the future of the Web, arguing for a cyber-demoracy (which I personally think is idealistic at best), authors such as Lanier and Lovink have a more negative outlook, arguing that the internet is not emancipatory, but rather totalistic, resulting in the loss of the individual for the hivemind, or mob mentality. Keen on the other hand, sees culture as being degradaded (like the authors from the Frankfurt school), and sees the fact that the internet is freely available as the reason why. Carr on the other hand, writes from an almost neurological point of view, due to his naturalisation and nostalgic yearning for reading, to argue that the internet has resulted in his loss of the ability to deep read.
#GOH TIFFANY#
We begin by looking through Levy’s lens in his take that there is democracy on the internet. He comes up the term “collective intelligence” which suggests that the Internet represents an “unmediated presence of humanity to itself since every possible culture, discipline and passion is therein woven together”. Levy’s aspiration towards freedom and view that the Internet is emancipating is an ideal one, in my opinion. He believes that the internet offers a level playing field for both consumers and producers and is a collaborative act of collecting and collecting intelligence. While this is true to a certain extent, there are underlying issues of governance. It is his hope that there might one day be “cyber-democracy”: a possibility of a single governing entity which will regulate the use of the internet. However, this seems to be quite an impossible feat since problems such as how representative this body might be and the legitimacy of the governing entity would be called to question.
Similarly, Lanier agrees with Levy that there is online collectivism at work on the internet. However, he argues on the side of the Frankfurt School- in that the individual is being overrun by voices of the mob. He contrasts Wikipedia with a social media platform- Myspace. On Myspace, the individual gets to exercise autonomy in the creation of their personalized profile whereas he believes that since Wikipedia is a mere consolidation of information from various sources, it has allowed for the dulling of criticality. Wikipedia has become a one-stop information site where we unthinkingly consume and take the information at face-value. This is dangerous as no one regulates and governs a site like Wikipedia. Hence, the credibility of the information is highly dubious and could be rendered ineffective- given that the information has been removed from its original source and context and lumped together with various other sources. This is relevant as it is indeed true that professors in school always insist that we should never cite Wikipedia as it is not reliable. What he suggests then is a “managed collective”, which can be likened to ‘meritocracy’. The brightest of the lot will have a hand in managing the internet and be the ones who regulate sites such as Wikipedia. What Lanier doesn’t address, however, is the resultant effects of inequality.
Both Carr and Keen describe the detrimental effects of Web 2.0 and search engines such as Google. Carr lays out an ontological argument and claims that Google has made us unable to engage in “deep reading” as we are now constantly distracted. This is a consequence of the net which prides itself on “efficiency and immediacy”. The internet then, has irrevocably affected the way in which we read- and has made us “stupid”. Critics would argue that the ability to read deeply may not be the best indicator of one’s intelligence. For Keen, he acknowledges that Web 2.0 has empowered anyone to contribute to the sea of online information. This empowerment, however has resulted in narcissism in the form of “personalization”. There are therefore, inherent contradictions within the resultant modernity of technology. On the one hand, Keen argues against the collective since are no longer able to distinguish which opinion on the internet is the best since they all seem to be legitimate and authoritative sources. And on the flipside, Keen also recognizes that the placing of the individual on the pedestal has created an obsession for ourselves.
Lee Cheong Khi
This week’s authors discuss about the social effects brought about by the Internet, especially in recent years. Unlike the rest of the authors, Levy seems to adopt a rather optimistic, utopian view of the Internet as a tool or rather a way to change the world. He asserts that it is a place for people to exercise their freedom. Because of the “fact that everything is possible on the Internet”, people now can aspire towards freedom. He recognizes the potential harm that people now can create, but urges everyone to act responsibly and proposed people to “move in the direction of a more powerful and deliberately assumed freedom and collective intelligence” through Cyber-democracy. To him, Cyber-democracy meant that the cyberspace “must become more transparent”, and people can be able to access everyday as well as the ability for “citizens to be served rather than as subjects to be administered.” In a way, citizens should be granted more autonomy in the use of cyberspace. He believes that it can then bring about a revolution that encourages collective intelligence and peace.
Lanier describes how Wikipedia is problematic because it discourages ownership and encourages people to simply credit the Internet as doing the job without actually thinking about who are the ones providing the answers, which is “devaluing people and making ourselves into idiots.” To him, real writing “involves articulating a perspective that is not just reactive to yesterday’s moves in a conversation”, but also possessing “a profound influence on how decisions are made”. Instead, Wikipedia is discouraging real writing and promoting collectives that is problematic. Collectives to him can be efficient and productive only under certain circumstances such as having a “quality control mechanism that relies on individuals to a high degree.” As such, he is trying to explain that individuals are devalued through Wikipedia and at the same time stating that all hope is not lost as Wikipedia become better, empowering the individuals instead of the collective. As for Keen, Web 2.0 is problematic because arts, design, creativity has become ‘massified’. Many people are beginning to be actively involved online, that ““levels the playing field” between experts and amateurs.” This is somewhat in line with the Frankfurt School theorists as they describe how the arts, music become mass produced. For Carrjul, he critiques Google as he believes that it is making us less critical and shortens our attention span easily with the large amounts of information made available.
Lastly, Lovink presents the ideas and views of the use of Web 2.0. To him, the mass usage of the Internet has led to many negative effects, such as cyberbullying, identity theft, etc. Control over the Internet is slowly diminishing as it becomes harder to trace people’s use of the net. However, he describes that as the content becomes uncontrollable online, nation states are increasingly trying to gain control on people’s use of the Internet. He gave the example of the “Great Chinese Firewall” which has till date continued to monitor the use of the Internet in China.
Ong Yan Ting
Levy argues that collectivism on the Internet is preferable as it would lead to higher accountability and thus cyber democracy. It represents an openness that allows individuals to have their own input, and there is a collective intelligence that would allow everyone to enjoy the same access to information.
Lanier is of opposing view to Levy, as he feels that online collectivism is making people stupid and it is a form of totalitarianism as individuals no longer are critical of what they see. He makes example of Wikipedia and how it has become so important within such a short time, and many people simply accept the information found on it as true. Wikipedia gets its sources from other webpages, thus the removing of context may lead to very different understanding of the same content, which he says is problematic for people to take Wikipedia information at face-value.
Carr talks about how being used to doing everything on the Internet caused people to ‘lose’ their ability to do deep reading, when reading was in fact something learnt and not born with. The ‘skimming’ of content is a characteristic brought by capitalism, which emphasises efficiency. People read just enough to know the main points, people write just enough to get their point across, whatever is done is to the basic minimum it requires to get that task done.
Annabel Su
As we come to the end of the course, we have seen how the ways in which we produce and attain knowledge have been evolving, alongside the shifts in media and technology. In this last week’s readings, we assess how the new methods of creating and absorbing of knowledge can be controlled and used by institutions and organizations alike to ultimately gain power over the people.
Lanier is concerned with the loss of individuality, and the replacement of the special, responsible and engaged individual as the main driver in the knowledge, information and culture system. He also maintains that such knowledge is now being handled by and given credit to artificial intelligence – that is driven by the online collectivism- which strips away the basis of knowledge coming from people themselves. Similarly, Keen also argues that user-generated online content is enabling the Net to be more controlling and militant, thus taking away the significance of the individual because his or her idea and likes or dislikes are just going to be used as a selling point. Lovink is also similarly concerned with the control of user-generated online content and the population as he posits that it is such control that creates profits for companies like Google who distribute these content to the masses.
Carr argues that because reading is not instinctive for humans, the tools and technology we use mould the way we read. Hence, in this age, the Internet is shaping the way we read – efficient, bite-sized – making us less able to read materials that are more lengthy and in-depth. He also laments that by mediating knowledge through computers, we are but stripping away our own intelligence.
yeow xinyin christy
Levy provides a vision of what will happen when everyone can participate within Cyberspace. He argues that mankind’s true essence, which is the aspiration towards freedom and openness, is revealed by the Internet. In this era of collective intelligence, there is a shift of knowledge and power from the individual to the collective.
Lovink gives an overview of the post 9/11 reconstruction period where Silicon Valley found its inspiration in 2 projects, which was the Google Search and the blogging scene. Profit is no longer made at the level of production as it used to be in the past. It is now made through the control of distribution channels. With tools to control the national IP range, countries can block users outside the country from viewing what is within and prevent their own citizens from visiting foreign sites. He then focuses on the impact of the Internet usage on the brain. He agrees that the Internet is a tool which has changed the way the world works but it comes with a cost of us not having full control over it, allowing mass marketing to take over. Profiles abstracted from “user generated content” are sold to advertisers as direct marketing data.
Lanier makes an open criticism about Wikipedia and its ‘hive mind’. He warns how Wikipedia re-establishes the idea of the collective being ‘all-wise’ by increasing collectivists’ thoughts and the devaluation of creative individuals’ works by which the algorithms aggregate anonymous and de-contextualised information. He is worried that the individual will no longer be able to assert the “right” information and instead, accept the “wrong” information by the group.
Carr feels that the time spent on the Internet is making him lose his ability to concentrate and states the footnotes and links bring us to the next page. He also states that old media have to adapt to new media’s style and gives the example of the magazine which includes short passages of text to tell the reader what an article is about. Carr cites the invention of the mechanical clock which made human dependent on discrete mathematical time and not their senses anymore.
Khrisha Chatterji
This week’s readings present how the architecture of the internet impacts the way we think and understand things and vice versa. Some analysts see the internet as opening up/ tapping on our imagination, offering broader perspectives through online discussions, writings and readings, etc. on any subject matter while others see the internet as making us dumb or restraining the way we think because we tend to accept and read only average opinions because the internet allows everyone to be authors, eliminating exceptional talent.
First group sees the internet positively. They see it as a democratizing space that allows more views on subject matters, allows for our imagination to grow, and allows for connectivity with people along the lines of self-interests.
Second group sees the internet negatively. An analyst on this side of the argument believes that the way we use the internet, rather, the structure of the internet has a psychological impact on us. That is, we lose our concentration for deep reading and start finding something else to do. It makes us want to speed browse instead of going into the details. The internet is an access point for a lot of people nowadays and people can write what they want, unless of course there are restrictions. This, they claim, creates average understandings, an acceptance of the average and that should not be the case. They see the internet as problematic with regard to the production and receiving of knowledge.
The internet should not be viewed as something that is either good or bad. It is really both. It is up to the users to discern the good and the bad, etc. It is more a question of how we use the internet for knowledge sharing and learning purposes.
Rachel Ng
Collective conscience in a way means consciousness and conscience. Conscience becomes the basis for Levy’s notion of the collective intelligence, which brings out moral politics of the internet. The internet brings an increased accountability and commutability to the mass; a kind of openness and greater connectivity to allow for the platform of discussion of more important matters concerning human beings. Democracy is somewhat present, but does not have someone in charge unlike physical reality. Politics are present everywhere and is brought out by the internet, even by torrenting a movie you are disregarding the whole system of exchange in the movie industry. The issue of property is challenged and it was something that belonged pre-modern, but now we are more concerned with access rather than ownership and property.
Another author Lanier calls for a direct opposition to what Levy says. He offers the view that only if someone is in charge, would the collective be good. In this case, meritocracy. The success to modernity whereby there is someone in power above the crows to make sure the crowd is in line. Carr also advocates the individual in his reading – the individual is privileged and due to the proliferation of media, the individual is being threatened.
To Keen, however, western culture, and not the individual is under threat. With the disappearing of individuals and the increasing difficulty of identifying what is best, culture cannot be defined because there is no best. This puts western civilisation at risk.
Frances Tan Wei Ting
The article by Keen makes a single point: Web 2.0 technologies promise every citizen the chance to author their own content and publish it, in turn setting up a situation borrowing sociological jargon such that their users are proletarians in opposition to the users of “elitist” traditional media who are bourgeois.
The article by Lovink looks at a number of issues surrounding Web 2.0, including the its characteristics, criticisms, colonization of real-time, extreme opinions and the “national web”. There are also some points made by other authors of this week’s readings such as Keen. Carr and Lanier. The reading contains the details – go there.
NIcholas Carr talks about how ‘the net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit of most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.’ I think this speaks of the universality and remediation of various mediums into the internet. Yet he questions the ‘freeness’ of information on the internet by highlighting the fact that it comes at the price of our attention and ability to focus. In this sense, the hypermediacy and multiplicity of the functions of the internet not only detaches people from each other but also detaches us from ourselves by hindering our physical and mental capability to efficiently analyse and absorb information. Likewise, Lovink questions the ‘freeness’ of information on the internet. The freedom or ‘freeness’ of the internet is merely and illusion, we are still being tracked and followed by groups that are driven by market interests. We gain information at the cost of our own information. There is also the notion of metaculture in Lanier’s work . Sites like google are not all knowing but in fact also function by collecting information generated by other people or groups, it is merely a medium through which we can the organised information that is online.
Nicholas Carr writes about our diminishing attention span and inability to function without technology, and this seems like a very obvious backwash of the technological developments, but it’s still really scary to think about just how much the way we use our brains has changed. He mentions that the debate about the topic does mention that the internet has allowed users to read more, just that it’s a different sort of reading. It is true, that the internet has allowed us to be so much more well-read than even just our parents’ generation – there is no denying that the kids of today seem to be getting smarter, and seem to be developing smarter mouths along with this. But if we take a step back and look at the other side of the debate, it seems pretty terrifying how parts of our brains that have been trained from young have started to shut down, and very quickly too, along with the speed of technological advancements. Not only has our attention spans diminished to the point where we spend most of our time findings summaries of summaries of readings or texts instead of reading the original piece, but many other simple tasks seem to be difficult to accomplish now. Honestly, it took me an unnecessarily long time to work out the “math captcha” equations that are required just to post these comments and this is because we’re so used to technology helping us calculate everything. Technology undoubtedly offsets labour and in more simplistic terms, speeds up our learning and every other process, but at the expense of our own brains being slower on their own. Whether Google, or any other technology, is “Making Us Stupid” or not, our reliance on technology today is definitely a completely different relation to machinery as it used to be just 20 years ago.
Similarly, Wolf, in Carr’s article, mentions that humans are not instinctively skilled to read and speech is far more natural than needing to translate the textual symbols “into the language we understand”. I never thought about it this way, and yet it really does seem true. Which then makes me wonder if it’s really ever my fault for not being able to finish my readings on time.
The new politics of knowledge is encompassed in the on-going debate about the sources of information and the associated rights that are attributed to them.
For media theorists, the biggest debate engulfing the Global North/West/’Developed’ world at present is rights to knowledge and sharing information via online platforms.
The turn of phrase ‘Wikileaks’ is a clear signifier of the not new but far more public trend of whistle blowing and active attempts to redistribute power from political institutions to the wider public.
Key themes are
Privacy
Transparency
Knowledge
Data
Licensing
Distribution
Access
Surveillance
Intrusion
Power
Control
The politics of ownership are key to the future of media and mediums.
The nodal point of this debate is the degree to which individual citizens should put due trust in governmental organisations to insure their security and welfare.
At the University of Glasgow in the United Kingdom, the rector (an independent adult who is nominated and elected solely by the student body and has the power to call senate) has just been elected. They will serve the student body campaigning for the rights and giving them due representation on the issues that matter the most. The candidate that was chosen was Edward Snowden.
You can read the coverage of his formal installation below:
http://glasgowguardian.co.uk/2014/04/23/snowden-makes-appearance-at-rector-installation/
This argument resonated with me:
“I’m disappointed that I couldn’t attend in person. But unfortunately I’ve discovered that I’m barred from entering the United Kingdom, on the grounds that my presence is considered detrimental to the public good. I think it’s fair to say that the election shows that the students of this University have a different take. I’m honoured to find that that is the case. In fact, I find it a great honour to be part of this today.
And gives a lot of food for thought, in regards to the future of governance, and the power that we vest in corporations and state institutions.
P.S. Shout outs to anyone who’s reading this, asides from the tutors, jaiyou for your finals!
In Digital Maoism, Lanier juxtaposes the medium of Wikipedia against MySpace. Having used both of them, I have some opinions regarding each.
Wikipedia has proven to be a very useful resource, whenever I want to read more about an author, a novel, a movie, or even a theory, I immediately Wikipedia it to get a rough idea. It gives rather comprehensive descriptions which more or less cater to what I’m looking for. However, whenever I use Wikipedia, there’s a nagging suspicion at the back of my mind to not fully believe whatever I read. This is due to Wikipedia’s editing function, which allows people to edit the content on the pages as and when they wish. This is why professors caution us that Wikipedia is not counted as a reliable resource – its content is malleable and cannot be guaranteed to be completely truthful. I suppose the editing function accords the reader a form of agency, knowing that the content is entirely up to him/her. Yet, this giving of agency to the consumer somehow robs us of a resource that would otherwise prove to be immensely useful – all facets of information about a certain subject all condensed into a page. This made me question whether the granting of agency to consumers is always a good thing.
MySpace, like Friendster, is slowly phasing out. What was most attractive about MySpace was the ability to tweak the HTML, to customize your page to reflect your personality. Like Wikipedia, agency is given to the consumers. Consumers now assume the dual role of producers as well, contributing to the content that circulates in the virtual world. Yet, despite this, MySpace has given way to a whole new social media platform (FaceBook). Unlike MySpace, Facebook does not allow you to customise your layout of your profile, the comments and the box for friends and photos are items that are standardised across users. Although users can choose cover photos (photos that cover the top of the profile), it’s sort of like agency is limited, and not completely given to consumers as in the case of MySpace. Facebook now trumps Myspace in popularity, once again posing the question of whether granting full agency/autonomy to consumers will prove to be a good thing in the long run.
This week’s readings focus on the effects of web 2.0, and social media websites, uncovering both political and psychological effects. While Levy is much more positive about the future of the Web, arguing for a cyber-demoracy (which I personally think is idealistic at best), authors such as Lanier and Lovink have a more negative outlook, arguing that the internet is not emancipatory, but rather totalistic, resulting in the loss of the individual for the hivemind, or mob mentality. Keen on the other hand, sees culture as being degradaded (like the authors from the Frankfurt school), and sees the fact that the internet is freely available as the reason why. Carr on the other hand, writes from an almost neurological point of view, due to his naturalisation and nostalgic yearning for reading, to argue that the internet has resulted in his loss of the ability to deep read.
We begin by looking through Levy’s lens in his take that there is democracy on the internet. He comes up the term “collective intelligence” which suggests that the Internet represents an “unmediated presence of humanity to itself since every possible culture, discipline and passion is therein woven together”. Levy’s aspiration towards freedom and view that the Internet is emancipating is an ideal one, in my opinion. He believes that the internet offers a level playing field for both consumers and producers and is a collaborative act of collecting and collecting intelligence. While this is true to a certain extent, there are underlying issues of governance. It is his hope that there might one day be “cyber-democracy”: a possibility of a single governing entity which will regulate the use of the internet. However, this seems to be quite an impossible feat since problems such as how representative this body might be and the legitimacy of the governing entity would be called to question.
Similarly, Lanier agrees with Levy that there is online collectivism at work on the internet. However, he argues on the side of the Frankfurt School- in that the individual is being overrun by voices of the mob. He contrasts Wikipedia with a social media platform- Myspace. On Myspace, the individual gets to exercise autonomy in the creation of their personalized profile whereas he believes that since Wikipedia is a mere consolidation of information from various sources, it has allowed for the dulling of criticality. Wikipedia has become a one-stop information site where we unthinkingly consume and take the information at face-value. This is dangerous as no one regulates and governs a site like Wikipedia. Hence, the credibility of the information is highly dubious and could be rendered ineffective- given that the information has been removed from its original source and context and lumped together with various other sources. This is relevant as it is indeed true that professors in school always insist that we should never cite Wikipedia as it is not reliable. What he suggests then is a “managed collective”, which can be likened to ‘meritocracy’. The brightest of the lot will have a hand in managing the internet and be the ones who regulate sites such as Wikipedia. What Lanier doesn’t address, however, is the resultant effects of inequality.
Both Carr and Keen describe the detrimental effects of Web 2.0 and search engines such as Google. Carr lays out an ontological argument and claims that Google has made us unable to engage in “deep reading” as we are now constantly distracted. This is a consequence of the net which prides itself on “efficiency and immediacy”. The internet then, has irrevocably affected the way in which we read- and has made us “stupid”. Critics would argue that the ability to read deeply may not be the best indicator of one’s intelligence. For Keen, he acknowledges that Web 2.0 has empowered anyone to contribute to the sea of online information. This empowerment, however has resulted in narcissism in the form of “personalization”. There are therefore, inherent contradictions within the resultant modernity of technology. On the one hand, Keen argues against the collective since are no longer able to distinguish which opinion on the internet is the best since they all seem to be legitimate and authoritative sources. And on the flipside, Keen also recognizes that the placing of the individual on the pedestal has created an obsession for ourselves.
This week’s authors discuss about the social effects brought about by the Internet, especially in recent years. Unlike the rest of the authors, Levy seems to adopt a rather optimistic, utopian view of the Internet as a tool or rather a way to change the world. He asserts that it is a place for people to exercise their freedom. Because of the “fact that everything is possible on the Internet”, people now can aspire towards freedom. He recognizes the potential harm that people now can create, but urges everyone to act responsibly and proposed people to “move in the direction of a more powerful and deliberately assumed freedom and collective intelligence” through Cyber-democracy. To him, Cyber-democracy meant that the cyberspace “must become more transparent”, and people can be able to access everyday as well as the ability for “citizens to be served rather than as subjects to be administered.” In a way, citizens should be granted more autonomy in the use of cyberspace. He believes that it can then bring about a revolution that encourages collective intelligence and peace.
Lanier describes how Wikipedia is problematic because it discourages ownership and encourages people to simply credit the Internet as doing the job without actually thinking about who are the ones providing the answers, which is “devaluing people and making ourselves into idiots.” To him, real writing “involves articulating a perspective that is not just reactive to yesterday’s moves in a conversation”, but also possessing “a profound influence on how decisions are made”. Instead, Wikipedia is discouraging real writing and promoting collectives that is problematic. Collectives to him can be efficient and productive only under certain circumstances such as having a “quality control mechanism that relies on individuals to a high degree.” As such, he is trying to explain that individuals are devalued through Wikipedia and at the same time stating that all hope is not lost as Wikipedia become better, empowering the individuals instead of the collective. As for Keen, Web 2.0 is problematic because arts, design, creativity has become ‘massified’. Many people are beginning to be actively involved online, that ““levels the playing field” between experts and amateurs.” This is somewhat in line with the Frankfurt School theorists as they describe how the arts, music become mass produced. For Carrjul, he critiques Google as he believes that it is making us less critical and shortens our attention span easily with the large amounts of information made available.
Lastly, Lovink presents the ideas and views of the use of Web 2.0. To him, the mass usage of the Internet has led to many negative effects, such as cyberbullying, identity theft, etc. Control over the Internet is slowly diminishing as it becomes harder to trace people’s use of the net. However, he describes that as the content becomes uncontrollable online, nation states are increasingly trying to gain control on people’s use of the Internet. He gave the example of the “Great Chinese Firewall” which has till date continued to monitor the use of the Internet in China.
Levy argues that collectivism on the Internet is preferable as it would lead to higher accountability and thus cyber democracy. It represents an openness that allows individuals to have their own input, and there is a collective intelligence that would allow everyone to enjoy the same access to information.
Lanier is of opposing view to Levy, as he feels that online collectivism is making people stupid and it is a form of totalitarianism as individuals no longer are critical of what they see. He makes example of Wikipedia and how it has become so important within such a short time, and many people simply accept the information found on it as true. Wikipedia gets its sources from other webpages, thus the removing of context may lead to very different understanding of the same content, which he says is problematic for people to take Wikipedia information at face-value.
Carr talks about how being used to doing everything on the Internet caused people to ‘lose’ their ability to do deep reading, when reading was in fact something learnt and not born with. The ‘skimming’ of content is a characteristic brought by capitalism, which emphasises efficiency. People read just enough to know the main points, people write just enough to get their point across, whatever is done is to the basic minimum it requires to get that task done.
As we come to the end of the course, we have seen how the ways in which we produce and attain knowledge have been evolving, alongside the shifts in media and technology. In this last week’s readings, we assess how the new methods of creating and absorbing of knowledge can be controlled and used by institutions and organizations alike to ultimately gain power over the people.
Lanier is concerned with the loss of individuality, and the replacement of the special, responsible and engaged individual as the main driver in the knowledge, information and culture system. He also maintains that such knowledge is now being handled by and given credit to artificial intelligence – that is driven by the online collectivism- which strips away the basis of knowledge coming from people themselves. Similarly, Keen also argues that user-generated online content is enabling the Net to be more controlling and militant, thus taking away the significance of the individual because his or her idea and likes or dislikes are just going to be used as a selling point. Lovink is also similarly concerned with the control of user-generated online content and the population as he posits that it is such control that creates profits for companies like Google who distribute these content to the masses.
Carr argues that because reading is not instinctive for humans, the tools and technology we use mould the way we read. Hence, in this age, the Internet is shaping the way we read – efficient, bite-sized – making us less able to read materials that are more lengthy and in-depth. He also laments that by mediating knowledge through computers, we are but stripping away our own intelligence.
Levy provides a vision of what will happen when everyone can participate within Cyberspace. He argues that mankind’s true essence, which is the aspiration towards freedom and openness, is revealed by the Internet. In this era of collective intelligence, there is a shift of knowledge and power from the individual to the collective.
Lovink gives an overview of the post 9/11 reconstruction period where Silicon Valley found its inspiration in 2 projects, which was the Google Search and the blogging scene. Profit is no longer made at the level of production as it used to be in the past. It is now made through the control of distribution channels. With tools to control the national IP range, countries can block users outside the country from viewing what is within and prevent their own citizens from visiting foreign sites. He then focuses on the impact of the Internet usage on the brain. He agrees that the Internet is a tool which has changed the way the world works but it comes with a cost of us not having full control over it, allowing mass marketing to take over. Profiles abstracted from “user generated content” are sold to advertisers as direct marketing data.
Lanier makes an open criticism about Wikipedia and its ‘hive mind’. He warns how Wikipedia re-establishes the idea of the collective being ‘all-wise’ by increasing collectivists’ thoughts and the devaluation of creative individuals’ works by which the algorithms aggregate anonymous and de-contextualised information. He is worried that the individual will no longer be able to assert the “right” information and instead, accept the “wrong” information by the group.
Carr feels that the time spent on the Internet is making him lose his ability to concentrate and states the footnotes and links bring us to the next page. He also states that old media have to adapt to new media’s style and gives the example of the magazine which includes short passages of text to tell the reader what an article is about. Carr cites the invention of the mechanical clock which made human dependent on discrete mathematical time and not their senses anymore.
This week’s readings present how the architecture of the internet impacts the way we think and understand things and vice versa. Some analysts see the internet as opening up/ tapping on our imagination, offering broader perspectives through online discussions, writings and readings, etc. on any subject matter while others see the internet as making us dumb or restraining the way we think because we tend to accept and read only average opinions because the internet allows everyone to be authors, eliminating exceptional talent.
First group sees the internet positively. They see it as a democratizing space that allows more views on subject matters, allows for our imagination to grow, and allows for connectivity with people along the lines of self-interests.
Second group sees the internet negatively. An analyst on this side of the argument believes that the way we use the internet, rather, the structure of the internet has a psychological impact on us. That is, we lose our concentration for deep reading and start finding something else to do. It makes us want to speed browse instead of going into the details. The internet is an access point for a lot of people nowadays and people can write what they want, unless of course there are restrictions. This, they claim, creates average understandings, an acceptance of the average and that should not be the case. They see the internet as problematic with regard to the production and receiving of knowledge.
The internet should not be viewed as something that is either good or bad. It is really both. It is up to the users to discern the good and the bad, etc. It is more a question of how we use the internet for knowledge sharing and learning purposes.
Collective conscience in a way means consciousness and conscience. Conscience becomes the basis for Levy’s notion of the collective intelligence, which brings out moral politics of the internet. The internet brings an increased accountability and commutability to the mass; a kind of openness and greater connectivity to allow for the platform of discussion of more important matters concerning human beings. Democracy is somewhat present, but does not have someone in charge unlike physical reality. Politics are present everywhere and is brought out by the internet, even by torrenting a movie you are disregarding the whole system of exchange in the movie industry. The issue of property is challenged and it was something that belonged pre-modern, but now we are more concerned with access rather than ownership and property.
Another author Lanier calls for a direct opposition to what Levy says. He offers the view that only if someone is in charge, would the collective be good. In this case, meritocracy. The success to modernity whereby there is someone in power above the crows to make sure the crowd is in line. Carr also advocates the individual in his reading – the individual is privileged and due to the proliferation of media, the individual is being threatened.
To Keen, however, western culture, and not the individual is under threat. With the disappearing of individuals and the increasing difficulty of identifying what is best, culture cannot be defined because there is no best. This puts western civilisation at risk.
The article by Keen makes a single point: Web 2.0 technologies promise every citizen the chance to author their own content and publish it, in turn setting up a situation borrowing sociological jargon such that their users are proletarians in opposition to the users of “elitist” traditional media who are bourgeois.
The article by Lovink looks at a number of issues surrounding Web 2.0, including the its characteristics, criticisms, colonization of real-time, extreme opinions and the “national web”. There are also some points made by other authors of this week’s readings such as Keen. Carr and Lanier. The reading contains the details – go there.
I didn’t manage to cover the rest.