fdreesimmons has 16 post(s)

The cultural landscape Taylor describes, is one chocked full of unseen dangers to the online populace.  The idea of an “attention economy”, according to her definition, is one based on the commodification of people.  By the employ of “reputation silos”, the use of our personal and professional online habits being monitored and used, by which people are categorized, classified  and then, subsequently judged in way people and companies do not have legal rights to do in the real world, are then used and applied in ways unintended and that may lead to new and various forms of discrimination (ethnic, socio-economic, gender). This unfair, unwanted, unwelcomed and highly invasive for of information gathering process exposes people to a form of online voyeurism that leaves no amount of your privacy intact or unexposed.  Then, after being so thoroughly violated and stripped bare, we are then sold on to the next buyer, to be forcibly marketed to.  The gathered information is used to determine, or rather to shape, what our wants, needs and likes are or should be.  Thus, dangling the newer, improved (in ways that really don’t matter much other than it’s new) versions of all of our already in-hand devices/goods/products, that just don’t quite measure up anymore, and adding to our ever increasing pile of “e-waste”.  This is made possible by those unknown digital companies that monitor and collect all this information, that it then sells to marketers, who use this information – in conjunction with “native advertising” cleverly disguised as editorial content on popular websites, designed to continue to sell us while pretending to be objective or give the real scope on any products/goods/services being offered.  The staffer driven marketing ploys is yet another way, the attention landscape Taylor refers to is being shaped – and, all of it used against the commodified public that 2.0 users are becoming.

In Taylor’s Chapter 5, the term “free” is introduced.  “Free” in this context, is defined as a way to subvert the capitalist corporate structure, or that the item (intellectual property) in question, has been “de-commodified”.  The prevailing belief of those who believe in the free culture concept, is an effective way to subvert corporate culture & defy market values.  This means having full access to materials (music, films,remixing & recontextualizing pop culture, or any other type of intellectual property), whether it is protected by copywrite laws or not, should/can be easily & freely shared by the denizens of the online world, without any type of compensation to/for the originators of the content.

On one hand, the proponents contend that the free sharing/consumption of these products is an inherent right of the people. However, big business is using these same peer-to-peer sharing sites & all other type of social media venues to their own benefit too.  The major media companies, like google & youtube, etc. – sell the personal information gathered to various sources, so that they can target & effectively market products.  So, when we talk about something being free, what it is really meaning is that, the end user/consumer feels no need, responsibility or desire to pay for the content; even though, the content is greatly desired. However, this does not address the loss of royalties or income producing activities to the owner of such artistic expression.  The public, by in large, is not supporting the artists who are producing the art the public is consuming en masse.  This lack of support is, in turn, making it harder & less desirable to continue to create & produce the art/content.

In chapter 5, we look at the concept of ownership of intellectual material in the digital world.  Copywriting, as it is traditional understood & used, is designed to protect the creators original creative product (an type of art developed & created) from being appropriated, used & distributed without the creator’s express knowledge, consent & compensation for the use of said artistic creation.  However, with the advent of the internet & the expansive nature of the digital world, this concept of copwriting has been under a fundamental attack.

 “Traditional notions of cultural ownership are also being challenged.  Online, creative works are decontextualized, remixed, and mashed up.  We surf and skim, passing along songs instead of albums, quotes instead essays, clips instead of films.  Artists who share their work with the world (or find it leaked) see it repurposed in ways they didn’t anticipate.  The minute a film is released or an essay is published, it begins to race around the Internet, passed through peer-to-peer networks, posted on personal Web sites, quoted in social media streams.  In one sense, therefore, any ownership claim is essentially fanciful, since, in practice, people’s creation circulate in ways they cannot control.” (145)

In additional, there are many people in the world that believe and idea cannot be fundamentally owned by just one person, but rather, gains power when it is shared (freely and widely) with all people.

“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called and idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it…ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature.” (146)

It is precisely this type of rationalization and belief amongst the denizens populating the digital world that is spearheading and the impetus behind the push to decentralize ownership of artistic ideas and enterprise by freely distributing and sharing material online (copywritten or not).

Digital Churnalism, as described by Nick Davies (Chap 3, 88-89), is the use of non-original material (usually directly taken from PR generated press releases or wire copy).  This material that is cobbled together from this marketing material, contains little to no actual news (as traditionally defined) or new information (based on defined journalistic practices).  At the most, a website may add a paragraph to the pre-formed message or attach a link to the story & publish it to attrack new & more clicks to increase traffic & meet the quota set by main websites based on web-based traffic.  Things like independent, in depth research, fact-checking, sources, citation, etc – are not being performed on the 88% of all articles we see online.  This kind of shallow, speed based story generation does little to nothing to support traditional journalistic values, journalistic integrity or monitoring government/big business, or inform the public.

Hybrid Assignment #2

Dree-el Simmons
IAS 31168 – Digital Media & Society
September 7, 2015

In response to this week’s hybrid assignment quote by Taylor, to “exist in two incommensurable realms of value and be torn between them–on the one side, the purely economic activity associated with straightforward selling of goods or labor; on the other the fundamentally different, elevated forms of value we associate with art and culture,” I see this as referring to the commoditization of all of our creative outputs. What I mean by that is, it seems that in the world of today, we must have a dollar amount attached to everything that we do. It all must ultimately whittle down to the dollars and cents. It is true that, for the majority of people that self-identify as artist, are still thought of & seen as labeled with the familiar moniker of the “starving artist” – thus, attesting to the fact that it is nearly impossible to be a self-sustaining artist. The value associated with the arts is diminished in comparison to those more “professional” career paths.
This paradigm can be more clearly understood by looking at current American Pop Culture. Many of today’s most famous and well known actors, singers and artists of all types, were once “starving artists” who were lucky enough to become successful and have the ability to sustain themselves by their artist expression. However, this is not the case for the majority of artist. Many actors, dancers and singers are often under employed in the traditional work force in largely service related industries like food service, retail and/or per diem labor because these types of employment situations allow for greater flexibility to pursue their various artistic endeavors, while they carve out a very meager living/income to sustain themselves. For many, this leads to a need to choose between financial security and creativity. And, this need of financial stability supersedes their desire for artistic expression, thus forcing them to conform to a life of drudgery; working in unfulfilling jobs. It is also funny that, these same people are then also judged for not being dedicated to their art; because they are forced to find ways and means to support themselves, which ultimately decreases the time and energy they have to pursue/produce creative expressions.
This is a rather accurate and insightful quote. One that most of us have/do identify with for various reasons, when we find ourselves saying/thinking that there’s just not quite enough time for us to do all the things that we need and want to do.

Dree-el Simmons

IAS 31168 – Digital Media & Society

Prof. E. Bullock

August 29, 2015-08-29

(submit on time via email due to technical issues)

Taylor Hybrid:

My personal interpretation of Taylor’s quote would be that, in our social structures, technology is not purely good or bad; rather, the intent behind its employ is what determines and distinguishes its role, place and function.  It is the same dynamic as with a firearm.  A gun, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad; but rather, it is the use and the intent of its wielder that gives the tool its ultimate purpose.  In the hands of an officer of the law, or anyone that is using a gun to protect and safeguard the lives of oneself or others, this tool can be regarded as good, for it can be said to be servicing a higher and more noble purpose; however, the reverse is true when a gun is in the hands of someone set to cause destruction and devastation; then, the same gun is interpreted as a weapon of great violence and/or sinister intent.

Conceptually, technology is a tool created to make the lives of people in society easier by rendering long and/or tedious chores to be faster and simpler to accomplish.  This is not to say that, technology has not been created and employed to cause great or mass destruction and harm.  Yet, even such technologies cannot, in and of itself, be identified as the cause or impetus of its design and/or use.  However, an argument can be made that by the inherent nature of what technology is, it creates a detachment from the immediate and visceral effects of actions, leading to an environment where such tools can be misused.  Therefore, we have to be diligent and mindful of the intent and use of the technologies we employ in all aspects of our society, today and in the future.