fy.williams105 has 16 post(s)

group: Yesenia Williams, Marisa Chung, Farrah Duplessis

In Chapter 4, Taylor defines “second level digital divide” as socially stratified variations in online skills and behaviors. She brings up the notion that there is inequality amongst people in their online usage, specifically high or low income; contrary to the belief that once all people are logged in there is digital equality. There are differences in people’s online skills such as frequency, patterns, or ability to research many topics. In analyzing the internet users, the most significant difference are in access, who has it versus who doesn’t, and how it is being used and their ability to find information. Second level digital divide is a socioeconomic creation that separates society and initiates inequality based on race, gender, and social class. An example would be a person who can only afford a cell phone versus a home, or school computer to conduct their searches and research. One will have a significant better chance and opportunity to conduct those searches versus the other. These disparities can play a role in any future ability to get a job, start a business, or excel in school.

This chapter was so interesting. To discuss digital media from the perspective of inequality brought to the forefront issues not typically talked about. The ability to measure the discrimination and biases that occur online can be difficult. The people utilizing the web come from all walks of life with numerous motivations. Taylor finds that with the second level digital divide, amongst other ways that discrimination occurs on the web whether it’s race, gender etc. this is only one topic among many that needs attention. With choosing to tackle them, gives hope for a better Internet culture. It needs to start with the reality that inequality exists in a place where we least expect it.

Astra Taylor’s chapter, “Drawing a Line”, tackles the topic on the lines that are crossed in digital advertising. The information that is gathered on users through their daily online behaviors is carefully monitored for the sole purpose of advertising opportunities. The very idea that the Internet has a large influence on our psyche is relevant to how many ads are shown and produced for viewing. Without realizing it, the user is absorbing these moments, advertisements, visuals, words, and newscasts all with the intention of shaping you. The driving forces are the advertisers. Taylor shows this by describing how “companies compile highly detailed dossiers, which they use to tailor the content we see” (Taylor Pg. 190). The motivation to formulate profiles based on people’s experiences, age, marital status, and religion are all things Taylor states are turning users into “reputation silos”. With privacy laws continuously being challenged and boundaries tested, the future of digital monitoring can reach discriminatory grounds, especially as Taylor brings up, an example if used to determine credit worthiness.

Taylor discusses the serious and quite disturbing reality of “e-waste”, the discarded electronics that are taken for the purpose of recycling, or disposal. She believes that the improper discarding and unrealistic statistics that surround this in our digital age is a crippling situation for the economy and damaging to those who are exposed to the chemicals associated with the processing. The concept of sustainability is foreign, or ignored. Every time someone buys a new electronic product, we are left to do something with the old piece. Most people don’t recycle them and instead hold on to them, however this unnerving desire to go out and buy the ‘newest thing” is as Taylor describes, an intentional obscurity that is put into place to force people to buy more, more quickly. The life span of a product is short and even if it isn’t, the new version of the same product allures people to spend. She sees this cycle as dangerous and careless for the environment with people not realizing the true cost.

In Taylor’s chapter, “The Double Anchor” she describes how digital media continues to cause a problem when the intentions to protect your creative works arise. Copyright laws are in place to ensure that original works are safe from being taken. With the expanding influence of the Internet, we are constantly seeing “original works” replicated and reproduced in numerous ways. Taylor defines this sweeping trend to blur the lines between creators producing work that is being considered free knowledge while having the creator lose out on a profit.

The copyright debate is one that Taylor speaks of with regard to having the rights to finished products. Artists might draw inspiration from previous work to make a film, write a book, or compose a song, however they should be considered as their work to claim. She poses the question of who can claim knowledge and whether it is free. the notion of “free” and ownership is a topic she discusses. With works being shared, the concept of owning anything has changed and many artistic industries have been largely affected. Essentially not all creators find the exposure to be such a negative thing, while others find themselves losing out with the rise of this new digital age.

Milkman’s want/should conflict:

School Professor Katherine Milkman defines the want/should conflict as an act that is driven by impulse and quickly made by what we think we want, rather being guided by the things that are “deeply-rooted desires” and should want instead. She believes that although many people know what is better for them, they opt for a much faster option. The “should” options are often seen as duty and the “want” as pleasure. Milkman believes it is this very notion that occurs when taking in knowledge and information online. The things that motivate people to look up specific topics, or books, movies, are actually being deciphered based on data taken by previous searches. This allows for the same items to be viewed and increases the number of “want” versus “should” desires.

Yesenia (yessie) Williams

9/7/2015

Hybrid Assignment 2

In Astra Taylor’s chapter “Love or Money”, she discusses the way artists view their work and for what purpose it serves. The reason artists produce art and how they are truly compensated for their artistry, is a question that still is debatable. Taylor argues that artists seek to feed both their creative souls, as well as, put food on the table and have money to live. The ongoing struggle of producing art only puts into focus “the demands of the gift and the market”. (pg. 50) The hope is that eventually the work they produce will be recognized while keeping their creativity and job enjoyable. Taylor discusses how often the assumption that enjoying your job “does not by definition qualify as labor” (Pg. 51) For this reason, many artists today have to decide what it means to remain true to their craft while possibly sacrificing it to be paid.

The fate that creative people hold in the new economy is in fact between two realms as Taylor describes. To be torn “on one side, the purely economic activity, and on the other, the fundamentally different, elevated form of value we associate with art and culture.” (pg. 50) This challenges artists, for example, musicians, who work and are faced with the decisions that will ultimately force them to either one, sacrifice their creativity to fit into the mainstream music production culture, or be continuing to make their music but possibly not “make it”. The notion that artists are all “starving artists” still remains to be a true view. Often times, artists are struggling to make ends meet and find themselves picking up other odd jobs to compensate for the lack of income associated with pursuing a field of artistry.

The economy is connected to art in the way that it is promoted. Taylor sees it as a producing system that’s only concern is profit through heavy advertising. The value placed on art and culture has been lessened by the all-encompassing desire to be recognized, even if the cost is selling themselves short of their deserved reward.The Internet is contrived to service the advertisers who are paying for specific services, which makes one question, how is creativity truly being expressed?

Yesenia (Jessie) Williams

Trebor Scholz: Digital Labor 2013

In class, my group concluded that what Mr. Scholz states about the social media site, Facebook, capitalizing on the data usage and as a result, “the “users”, are sold as the product”, is accurate. Such practices of buying and selling the data for the sole purpose of profit places the user in an unusual predicament. Social media has become such a vital part of everyday lives and routine. It is often second nature to check Facebook even before your first cup of coffee. This undeniable urge, some might call it compulsion, transpires amongst many, for reasons we can’t explain. With partaking in these activities, are we, the users, being exploited or are we ourselves engaging in the formation of this exploitation unaware of the financial gain and benefit of others? Our history and updates are being monitored and specifically catered to attract certain companies.

Trebor Scholz brings up an interesting idea on whether these activities constitute “labor”. If the things we do on Facebook for fun, to remain in touch, which is meant as an innocent pastime, in fact ring more true as free labor, that would place a heavy emphasis on questioning what exactly are we engaging in and at what cost. These companies are reserving what is leisure in our minds for a specific purpose in mind. Essentially Facebook’s packaging is deceiving us with an array of advertising while promoting a sense of consumerism that places the users at the very center.

However, even with this information being communicated to the user, it most likely will not change the frequency or motivation to continue to use Facebook. The financial gain to companies for our free pastime will continue to flourish. Even with the threat of limited privacy laws and information being sold, it does not deter the majority from using the site, because what it provides, some might find outweigh these concerns; and others may not find themselves offended by this notion that Trebor Scholz proposes.