å Tuesday, September 1st, 2015

Hello class, my name is Angeline Henriquez and this post is in response to an excerpt read in class from Trebor Scholz’s Digital Labor. In this fragment Scholz talks about how websites used for social media make their money. He is specifically critical of Facebook, which sells their collection of user data to third party advertisers. He states “We, the user, are sold as the product” for every post and every like. Undeniably, Facebook makes a substantial profit from information that its users once considered private, or thought would only be shared to selected groups or friends online. This then proposes the argument that if there is a profit involved, then the leisure time we spend online could be considered as labor. This is where the line between work and leisure starts getting blurry.

The buying and selling of data turns our online experience into a business transaction but to us, the users, it never really feels like so. One because we don’t get a paycheck for every “like” (although I’m starting to think we should), and two because we are able to do so much creatively online without worrying about being sued every time we reference a franchise or corporation. Scholz makes an example out of the writing and sharing of fanfiction, and how it would not make sense to assume that the user writing it would view it as labor. I believe this is a good point that Scholz makes but I can’t help thinking if ultimately, this distinction should be left up to the writer and user to determine.

Hello everyone! My name is Marisa Chung and our group had a chance to discuss about the Trebor Scholz’s Digital Labor. During our discussion, we all agreed that Facebook makes their enormous amount of profit in numerous ways. Whether it is by advertisement, collecting our data, or simply by tracking our interest, we are being sold as the “product” as it is mention in the article. We focused more on advertisement because we believe that other companies pay Facebook to advertise their product so that we, Facebook users, can see it and purchase the items. Our likes and interests is what our advertisement “feed” consists of. Facebook can be a great source to keep in touch with people all over the world but it unfortunately comes with a lot of baggage.

The reality is that we as the “products” being sold” are aware of this situation but continue to use it regardless because of its convenience. The buying and selling of data complicates the way we differentiate between work and leisure because Facebook no longer becomes a social networking website where it allows users to interact with others during their “spare time”. Everything has become business related which in many ways seems unfair. Facebook claims to be “free” but it really isn’t.

Best,
Marisa

Part 2 (hybrid). Elaborate on the shift that Turner points to. What might have caused our views of technology to change so dramatically? Even though we don’t yet have an answer to this question, we can speculate.

The shift that Turner points to from the excerpt from From Counterculture to Cyberculture was caused by time and knowledge. Our views of technology changed so dramatically because we have more knowledge on how technology can be used. Initially, when computer technology was introduced in America it was used by the military and little was known about how it was being used. Also, there was the Vietnam War and subsequently the Cold War.  As Turner says in the article, “computers loomed as technologies of dehumanization, of centralized bureaucracy and the rationalization of social life.” Technology in the mid-90’s, and now, has now minimized our world. Information that was hard to get when computer technology was first introduced is now readily available at our fingertips. We now live in a world where digital media functions in more ways than it ever has. A lot of people now have grown up with technology. It’s not as much of a mystery as it once was. There are toddlers that have iPads at an early age that can use digital media and technology better than people a lot older than them.

Just like anything in life, once you get a better understanding of the subject  it’s easier to comprehend. When you educate yourself it opens the doors to more possibilities. Technology is no different. Once Americans knew more about the possibilities of technology they were willing to allow themselves to be part of a “digital generation.”

People in today’s society are living at a much faster pace; we need something to keep up with us at the rate. It also has a lot to do with competition between companies and their consumers. Every few months we look forward to the latest gadgets that are hitting the market and we try to be the first in line to get it. As for those who cannot afford to get it right away we have a tendency to show it off or flash our devices for egotistical reasons. The shift in which turner refers to reflects upon the mind state of society during the 60’s, the acceptance of technology was different compared to the 90’s. In the 60’s, the technology era was just beginning to rise and a lot of people was ignorant to what was going on. Indeed people do fear what they don’t know, so a lot of persons did not accept the change in times. During the 90’s, computers were already well known about and place in every educational facility and almost every house. The rise of the World Wide Web wouldn’t be as frightening in the 90’s as the 60’s because it was seen as just another feature of the computer.

Jodene Davis

The shift Turner talks about is the acceptance of computers and new technology from one era to the next. There are a number of things that could’ve changed our views of information technology and the Internet itself. Within our group we talked about the following possibilities why there was a drastic change.

Time can do wonders on new ideas and concepts. It was approximately 30 years since the first introduction of the computer to society in the 60s to the 90s. Time allowed advances that would transform the way people did things and the way they lived with themselves. Also, within the 30 years people were able to learn more about computers and their abilities. This could be the reason why the shift of acceptance went from being extremely hesitant in the 60s to welcoming in the 90s.

Another thing to take into consideration is the difference with the generation. In the 60s, things like televisions, phones, computers, etc. was in its beginning stages. During this decade, many people were against military and government, especially the Vietnam War. Computers then were for military use. When it was available for public use it did not gain much acceptance. They were more skeptical of why the computer was available to them when it was strictly for the military. It could also be possible that they might’ve felt as if the government was trying to control them, maybe even trying to take away their individual privacy. In the 90s people were more carefree and open-minded. I think they were more accepting because more information was available to them. There was also this sense of free being with technology. They were able to do what they wanted and discover new things with what was available for them. This change in view goes for any new concept/idea that is introduced to humankind.

Janelle Figueroa

Deborah Markewich – Assignment 1 – Astra Taylor

Part 2 (hybrid). Taylor (2014:6) argues that how questions about technology are framed is important, and that we “[grant] agency to tools while side stepping the thorny issue of the larger social structures in which we and our technologies are embedded.” In your own words attempt to describe what Taylor is trying to tell us.

In this selection from The People’s Platform, Astra Taylor is pointing out the fact that our society often debates the negative vs. positive consequences of technology. Are we better off today with astounding technological advances that make our lives so much easier? Or are we heading down a dangerous path where our privacy is threatened beyond our control? Is the ability for anyone to voice one’s ideas and thoughts to an instant audience a good thing? Or are these writers being exploited by the sites and advertisers that profit from them? Just as Thomas Carlyle and Timothy Walker debated the pros and cons of the mechanical advances in the Victorian Era, many writers today feel strongly one way or the other – “techno-optimists facing off against techno-skeptics” (Taylor, 6) – but Taylor seems to be saying that it is not as black and white as that and that we are asking the wrong questions.

The problems that existed before the Internet still exist and may even have been exacerbated by it. The Internet has not leveled the playing field as many had hoped it would. Taylor states, “While it’s true that anyone with an Internet connection can speak online, that doesn’t mean our megaphones blast our messages at the same volume.” (Taylor, 4)  The people who controlled the media still have control. Our societal problems have continued in many ways  and for all the new developments, many things are not really that different. We need to look beyond the technological tools and examine the social structures and economic forces that were in place before the Internet existed and continue to occur in technology today. We must address the challenges they present if we want to create a more evenhanded and inclusive society.