5 Hybrid Assignment 01

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.

Good evening class my name is Karen and our group discussion was on the Trebor Scholz’s Digital Labor. Our group came to the conclusion that sites like Facebook are using our information to benefit big companies. Our like, search history and our status updates are all being use to sell us products we might or might not need. The differences between work and leisure is simple we get pay for one and we pay for the other. In today’s media obsess society the line between work and leisure seems to get blur. Scholz writes, “Harry Potters fans produce fan fiction and give their creative work away for free in exchange for being ignored by the corporation.” In this case the product that the Harry Potter fans are producing is being created at their leisure. The point that Scholz makes reminds me of how social media is working to benefit big companies. We are consistently using our free time to advertise without getting paying. This is where things get complicated because we can’t ask companies to pay us for doing something they didn’t ask for. Unless you become a social media sensation we the customer will be over looked and will be use as free advertisement if we keep posting and liking. It’s a complicated relationship because while some of us aren’t getting pay for our “work” others are getting pay for posting and liking. Such as, Youtube stars what was once a site for funny cat videos and how to videos it is now a tool that companies are using to sell their products. People who were once like us liking and posting on their own are selling us these products. Unless you’re a social media sensation you will not get pay for advertising on a companies behave.

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 preface to The People’s Platform, Astra Taylor makes the case that our examinations of the influence of technology on our lives concentrate too much on the effects of the tools rather than asking questions about the cultural environment that gives rise to them or enables certain use cases. The crux of the argument is a capitulation to technological determinism where humanity is shaped by the tool, rather than utilizing the tool to build out (or tear down) the society we’ve already conceptualized. That technology is inherently deterministic is a question unresolved by anthropologists and social scientists. While it can certainly be said that certain tools have altered the global landscape, there was typically a material or social need that gave rise to the creation of those tools and a cultural engine that drove expanded use of the tool.

It brings to mind the idea of whether objects have lives of their own rather than an inherently anthropocentric meaning or whether objects and users exist in a kind of symbiosis whereby neither are more relevant than the other. Latour and Harman, branching out of Heidegger, examine this concept at length. It is only recently that this principle is being applied to contemplation of the digital landscape, particularly through the lens of unpacking the orientation of design as in Tony Fry and Clive Dilnot.

Divining the agency to objects exists within a larger metaphysical realm outside the bounds of what can be adequately quantified by the promised data deluge that we are breathlessly told my techno-optimists must be mined to best understand our relationship to the world around us. Taylor seems to suggest that no such mining can take place without first examining the structure of the world we live in, including its trenchant inequalities and the governing ideologies. Further, there is the implication that it is our reluctance to question our social structures that may foment techno-deterministic sentiments.

This is a response to question two of Assignment 01.a (Taylor)

The closing paragraph of the Preface from Astra Taylor’s The People’s Platform offers an organizing theme to the detailed analysis she provides later in Chapter one – “Technology alone cannot deliver the cultural transformations we have been waiting for; instead, we need to first understand and then address the underlying social and economic forces that shape it.” (Taylor, 10)

This stood out to me because it loosened the subject matter from the “binary narrative” in which it is generally placed – the role and existence of the internet/social media as savior and revolutionary or the internet/social media as an anti-social neurological threat to humankind. This naïve and idealistic dichotomy typically puts the onus on people to resist the less desirable effects of compulsive social media habits through will power and shame rather than seeking to illuminate in plain language exactly how these internet and social media giants (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, etc,..) strategically exploit these common human frailties in order to utilize the information they collect for monetary gain. All these New York Times best seller non-fiction titles that decry the compulsive behaviors that society en large engages in via the web and social media are too myopic in their scope, as they seek to problematize the individual rather than call out the embedded agendas of the social media conglomerates and the tactics they employ to elicit clicks.

Taylor is also calling out the double speak language used to hail the internet and its tech as ensuring liberation via “Open-ness” – none of these mechanisms of the internet are free of the bias of those who created them. The Internet, its technology, and its interfaces did not emerge from a vacuum. These tools are inflected by the mores and prejudices of the makers behind them, they reflect all the hope and all the limitations that human minds already contain. The internet/social media is shaped by already existing power dynamics and social structures that if left unchecked or not interrogated will continue to contribute to hierarchies of control and power. This is some of what Taylor is getting at so far in these first two sections of her book.

– Sergio

Taylor is discussing that the arguments we most often hear about technology are put into basic, black and white -good versus bad- terms rather than people on an individual basis taking a deeper than superficial investigation of the who/what/why behind our media use and its true purposes. I believe Taylor is saying that it is good that we are starting the conversation by asking broad questions, but we need to dig deeper and really look at how our day to day actions and behaviors using the internet and using social media are adding to new trends in how we are targeted online by those looking to profit. Saying that as an individual that we cannot make a difference in changing how things are is only securing yourself as a part of the larger problem of the internet being dominated by corporations that control our social structures.

Taylor also brings up impact of technology on our culture and in this we can look to how so many internet users have a lack of concern in granting faceless, nameless companies permission to access our private information, who then use, save, or sell it for reasons not made clear to the public. It is these simple actions that so greatly contribute to technological cultural impact, meaning that we are handing over exactly what researchers are looking for to make our online behaviors more compulsive. It is easy to not think about exactly how our identity, internet use and locations are being tracked because we don’t see immediate consequences of what our thoughtless finger-click is actually compromising about ourselves. Why do we so blindly allow the technologies that are such a huge part of daily lives be controlled against our best interest? Why don’t we demand more transparency and honest practices?