fs.jeannot has 15 post(s)

In Chapter 6’s “Drawing the Line” Taylor argues, “[w]hile many hoped the Internet would help create a more varied cultural landscape, advertising dollars continue to distort the market by creating perverse incentives, encouraging the production of irresistibly clickable content.” Taylor describes this cultural landscape as an “attention economy.”

A part of the “attention economy” that has been created is “e-waste.” Having the newest gadget has become a symbol of socioeconomic wealth for some and it has created a lot of gadgets that have become outdated. The disturbing part of e-waste is that there are people all over the world who do not have access to ANY gadget at all while we here in America clamor two times a year for whatever new Apple product is going to be released. We have become such a consumerism culture that we don’t see the bigger picture. How do we dispose of all this waste? Where does it go? And how is it effecting our world and environment. As Taylor said, “What, one wonders, is the real price of a ‘free’ cell phone or a cheap reading device, tablet or computer – objects so easy to come by that we mistake them for worthless?”

Another of the terms in this chapter that she describes is “tastemakers.” Webster’s Dictionary describes a tastemakers as “a person whose judgments about what is good, fashionable, etc., are accepted and followed by many other people.” This judgement as Taylor describes only depends on if the actual tastemaker is successful in some way. Today, success is measured in a lot of different ways. a tastemaker may be someone on twitter or Instagram that has 100s of thousands or millions of followers. Education, artistic greatness or talent level still plays a part, but now one can be a tastemaker by not doing anything at all. This “attention economy” seems to cater to create a certain type of celebrity that 20-25 years ago would not exist.

When Taylor says “access to content” she is referring to the large companies (capitalists) who are providing a service (ISPs) to allow the public to use the internet/digital media. Giving access to digital media allows these companies to provide their database of users to other large companies. The “distribution networks” are the companies that control how content is spread. Both work together to basically make money off the users. Facebook and Google do not sell any type of service (digitally), but advertisers see how many users they each have and therefore can use that to generate funds by selling ad space or user database. So let’s say Verizon Fios provides me with internet; they allow me to have access to content. Once I am online I go to a distribution network, say Facebook. Facebook then can trade that information in back to Verizon or whoever else is the highest bidder to try to attract me into purchasing another one of their products. The whole system was created for the benefit of capitalists.

Digital Media is very complicated when it comes to our relationship to copyright. So much information and knowledge is passed through digital media that ownership becomes very blurry. In reading the first few pages of chapter 5 of Taylor’s book, the author herself had issues with copyright when her documentary was pirated and posted online. She explained the costs in making the documentary and how her film being pirated may actually take money out of her pocket. It is a valid concern. The people who pirated the documentary also made a valid point. So who’s right in this situation? This example is a little more complicated because if you are actually making a documentary to spread knowledge to people you must know sooner or later this is going to be a work that is used as an educational reference.

Another example of the complexity of our relationship to copyright is the billions of people who have access to the internet and to digital media. How can you police that many people if they’ve stolen someone’s copyright. Of course there are laws in place but to catch every single offender would be too large a task. As a 2011 report to the UK government noted in the chapter, “The copyright regime cannot be considered fit for the digital age when millions of citizens are in daily breach of copyright, simply for shifting a piece of music or a vide from one device to another.”

Copyright protection is trying to get better with things like content ID systems and Digital Rights Management software but it’s still a heavy burden for the copyright owner. There are those who create content who may not be able to afford this protection. A lot of times artists take chances with their work being pirated leaving them with no guarantee of a financial gain. And some, if not most, only hope that their art can provide for themselves and their families.

In Chapter 3 Taylor brings up the term “Bored at Work Network” which to me defines certain times in one’s work schedule where there me a lag or, as stated in the book, “our diminishing attention spans” get the best of us. I have caught myself working on something diligently only to be distracted by a news alert on my phone or an email that may have come in on my personal account. For me I believe its the immediacy of wanting to know information as fast as possible and, in most cases, before anyone else.

It’s very interesting how Taylor mentions that the content that digital media is providing allows for “stolen moments on the job.” I know that this holds true for me. I usually don’t want to read “serious topics” that are “too weighty” as Taylor wrote because at times being at work is stressful enough and sometimes you’d like to see something positive or re-energizing that may make your day a little less stressful. Sometimes you want to just see the story of a dog that was a rescue and abused that transformed with the help of volunteers.

The “Bored at Work Network” to me always existed. Before there was digital media people would stand around a water cooler and talk about what was going in their lives, the world, etc. Maybe now, people are less inclined to do that and just stick with the digital media on their phone or computer. The social angle of the “Bored at Work Network” may have changed do to technology but this network has been around for a long time.

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.”