10 thoughts on “Week 13 – The New Politics of Knowledge (T4)

  1. Patricia loh hui ye

    In Jaron Lanier essay “Digital Maoism”, he makes a criticism on wikipedia and its hive mind .He then criticisms the idea of collective as being ‘all wise’ and points out how this idea can be dangerous. The central problem that he sees in Wikipedia is not the experiment itself, but its rapid growth in size and importance. He believes that Wikipedia is a source of social danger, increasing collectivists’ thoughts and turning creative individuals into idiots. Lanier also further compares Wikipedia to MySpace ,which in opposition to Wikipedia is “all about authorship, but it doesn’t pretend to be all-wise”

  2. Dionne Cheah

    In this week’s readings, all the authors have different views about Web 2.0 and how it has affects us as a collective. I was personally intrigued by Carr’s article as he distinguished between how people were reading differently (deep versus light reading) from the past and people are easily distracted when they read today.

    He notes that while there are more people reading today, they are simply skimming or jumping from one place to another rather than reading with depth. He attributes this to Taylor’s principles of systematic management, and notes that this system has “created a utopia of perfect efficiency” in our society. This emphasis on efficiency is the central ethos of any capitalistic society, since more productivity is likely to equate to more profits. However, I don’t think humans are merely easily distracted when it comes to reading, but rather, I feel people have also become more selective in terms of their reading content. With lesser time to spare, people choose to skim or jump through texts rather than read deeply.

    As an example, I think Twitter is one of those media platforms that promotes light and selective reading to users. As tweets are limited to 140 characters, users are forced to construct short posts but at the same time, they are also provided with the option of hyperlinks. As a user’s newsfeed is updated almost instantaneously, one’s feed can be filled with several updates within seconds (but this is also dependent on the type of users they follow). Thus, when users browse through their updates, they don’t exactly read through every single tweet but engage in selective reading. If tweets that catch their attention have additional hyperlinks, users can choose to click on the link to find out more.

  3. Lisa Oon

    I must confess that it took me two days to read Carr’s “Is Google making us stupid?”. And because of that, I have to agree with him. With the Internet making all sorts of resources available to us, it is difficult not to get distracted, hopping from website to website.

    I find that I myself am unable to sit down for long periods of time to read anymore. I like to think of myself as open-minded, but after reading Carr’s article, I find that I myself am skeptical of how the advancement of technology will be that much beneficial to our own intelligence.

  4. Gareth Nah

    Carr’s pessimistic views of the internet’s development and increasing prominence in our lives deeply resonates with me, even though I do not consider myself a heavy internet user. Indeed, compared to most of my peers, I am a technological dinosaur, often finding myself out of place in, or at odds with, the increasingly wired society we live in. I am often unaware of new developments in technology, and often find myself struggling to harness the full potential of web-based services.

    Even so, I find myself plugged in for long periods of time, ensnared in the attractiveness of the numerous entertainment options available online. To me, being plugged in does not necessarily entail being physically in front of my computer and online. I may be going about other activities, but my mind may be drifting to the latest YouTube video I have watched. Even casually browsing through my Twitter feed over meals may be considered being plugged in. This pull of the internet probably echoes Keen’s views of the seductive nature of the internet.

    Carr also expounds on the new forms of reading and thought brought about by the internet. I agree that reading is an acquired skill, and is shaped by the socialization process. I believe such socialization is ongoing, and does not cease after a certain age. For instance, I often find myself tempted to skim through my seemingly endless pages of course readings, with little patience or time to delve in-depth into them. Indeed, as Carr suggests, the explosion of the internet leaves “little place for the fuzziness of contemplation”, prodding us away from deep thought or reflection.

    Carr draws upon the example of the mechanical clock to illustrate the malleability or plasticity of the human brain, arguing that “we inevitably…take on the qualities of…technologies” after their implementation. This is indeed a sound and valid claim, as evidenced by our tendency to use the time rather than our hunger levels to determine when we should have a meal, for instance. Society indeed adapts to revolve around technologies as they arise, using them as points of reference upon which we organize our daily lives.

    With such profound revolutions brought about by technologies over time, I am sceptical of the potential of the internet. Certainly, the rise of the internet is not all doom and gloom, with Keen pointing out its potential to democratize knowledge and empower netizens against the “elitism” of powerful media capitalists. However, such empowerment of the everyday netizen may present its own drawbacks, some of which may already be observed. If the playing field is indeed levelled, who will regulate the online sphere? The internet may soon degenerate into a mess of conflicting opinions and information, resulting in the loss of valuable insights in a bubbling cauldron of senseless chatter.

  5. Tan Zhuan Liang

    I concur with Nicholas Carr’s article with much interest as it reflects contemporary society and the example of Google is relevant to understand the politics of new knowledge better. Google began as a search engine to promote convenience for users to discover new information and unexpectedly information ended up as a form of commodity. In today’s contemporary society, wealth may still be the prominent form of commodity, but information is new form of commodity which is processed with industrial efficiency. So much so that search engines are ‘volatile’ and adapts itself to the preference of each individual. It seems as the faster and better technology gets, it would serve new purpose. Google started as a search engine and now, it is so productive that it feeds us information that we may seek. Amidst the different ‘services’, the sole purpose of Google is still the same: as a search engine.

  6. Lim Fang Yu, Russell

    Is the Internet really liberating information and enlightening the masses?

    “But one of the unintended consequences of the Web 2.0 future may well be that everyone is an author, while there is no longer any audience.” – Andrew Keen

    I am concerned at the state of Online Political Discussion in Singapore. Keen’s statement is apt when we see throngs of Netizens commenting on ‘hot’ issues, most recently the online protest against the celebration of Philippine Independence Day along Orchard Road.

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/04/15/14/nasty-comments-mar-filipinos-independence-day-preparations

    While there are valid concerns raised, it is disturbing to see insults, threats and parroting of replies, resulting in the organizers having little space to defend or justify their cause. While some may consider this free speech, among the hundreds of posts, how many are of value and meaningful for discussion and perhaps, reconciliation? It seems that ‘listening’ is a rare commodity on the internet.

    I find that people of different Political Views also tend to band together at online forums that suit their own interests. They seem to be too busy churning out articles/comments to support their cause, while quick to brush aside the opposing camp’s ideas. In this sense, I feel that meaningful political discussion is still rare and they tend to be submerged under the more emotionally charged and sensational comments.

  7. Averie Lim

    Lovink’s notion of how the Internet demands constant availability and that browsing the Internet produces value can be shown through Facebook “Like and Share” contests, where organisers utilise social media for publicity by getting Facebook users to “like and share” their posts for a chance at winning prizes. As the probability of actually winning can be rather low, Facebook users are indirectly working for these organizers by being part of marketing campaigns even though they are not paid to do so. These users are usually not conscious that they are technically doing the job of marketing for the organizers.

    On a side note, an interesting read is the 6pm email ban in France where a labor agreement refers to an obligation to disconnect communication tools after a worker (paid by no. of days worked rather than by hours) has worked more than 13 hours/day. We can think about how invasive communication tools have been such that legislations are implemented to protect the welfare of the worker.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2014/04/frances-6pm-e-mail-ban

  8. James Ang

    In an extension to Keen’s reading, I seek to introduce Keen’s concept of Digital Narcissism. He defines Digital Narcissism where egoism with the self leads to a “self-promotional madness so that the narcissists can fall in love with themselves all over again”.

    To him, this leads to a displacement of traditional media as he states: “because people who aren’t experts lead others and everyone feels “more and more virtuous and correct… curating our view of the world to our friends. “.

    This is similar to his previous argument from Web 2.0 and it represents this dissent for the current internet culture.

    The link of the video is provided below for a more comprehensive understanding of his opinions.

    http://embed.vidyard.com/share/5fisX7FfdPT6N7fEZAeqvA

  9. Lee Wei Jie

    One of the central arguments of this week’s readings on The Politics of Knowledge lies in the whether cultural ‘democracy’ or ‘mediocrity’ is prevalent in the era of the Web 2.0.

    Web 2.0, coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2004, suggests the phenomenon where the emergence of participatory culture and concomitantly, the changing role of the audience: Passive consumers → active consumers → active producers. For Lovink, he highlights the notion of democracy as being an assumption of the ramifications of Web 2.0. Writers like Andrew Keen however, suggests the Socrates nightmare of mediocrity as everyone is given the ability to voice themselves freely, which thus means a deterioration of what it means to have good/best culture.

    I would like to draw these arguments with 2 examples that I have found from another module in my course. These 2 examples would highlight two key issues: (1) one of the possible effects of Web 2.0, and (2) the mediocritization of culture, as Keen suggests.

    1) Kickstarter: The Issue of Crowdfunding

    Being named one of the best inventions of 2010 by Time, Kickstarter was a company built on the model of crowdfunding, which is the concept of collecting funds and contributors from backers around the world through the web, in order to finance a project or venture. With the sale of Oculus to Facebook for a whooping $2 million (that was initially campaigned by Kickstarter), this has sparked an outcry by its backers for a refund, and perhaps in the disappointment in the crowdfunding system. (See http://cir.ca/news/oculus-faces-facebook-backlash)

    This shows a particular case of the tensions that may arise as the evolving role of the lay citizen in transforming into producers rather than consumers clash with capital and economic factors.

    2) PressPausePlay: The Mediocritization of Culture
    (See http://vimeo.com/34608191)

    In this documentary, the issue of increasingly advanced technology provides software that do not require high levels of skill to create creative products. A highly cited topic was on music creation, how software like Logic or Apple’s Garage Band are inducing a sphere of music producers who could be any person that has the means to obtain such software. Indeed and interestingly, for Garage Band, one can drag a drum loop in that was pre-recorded by famous drum professionals around the world – one does not even need to know how to play the drums to produce music that are of the top tier.

    The argument threads that with such technology that is increasingly apparent in society today, the industry of music, and perhaps, in Keen’s words, the primacy of the Bourgeoisie is increasingly deteriorating under the mass cultural products that are created. The argument strikes on raising awareness of a possible massification of products that are not skillfully produced by ‘talents’, which ramifies into limiting real ‘talents’ from surviving in this market, and thus the ‘fall’ of real talents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *