A couple of weeks ago I turned on my XBox 360 and there were new icons informing me of new capabilities for my game console. I always find this a little disconcerting. I'm still accustomed to my old un-networked consoles that just turned on and played whatever game was inserted in their drive. This new system is pretty nice. There is a lot of talk in media that the Xbox 360 and the PS3 could be the devices that finally integrate the web and television. Microsoft just added facebook and twitter applications to the Xbox and I already enjoy Netflix Instant Streaming and Amazon on Demand. The evolution of the gaming console into this multi-purpose unit relates well to this week's readings. Jonathan Zittrain's The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It introduces the idea that the success of the internet and other networked innovations relied on its "generative" nature. The fact that the internet was an open space where dozens of people could collaborate, modify and enhance, is what made it work better than the tightly controlled environments or "tethered". Starting with the history of the first PC Zattrain points out a recurring pattern:
"The pattern begins with a generative platform that invites contributions from anyone who cares to make them. The contributions start among amateurs, who participate more for fun and whimsy than for profit. Their work, previously unnoticed in the mainstream, begins to catch on, and the power or the market kicks in to regularize their innovations and deploy them in markets far larger than the amateurs' domains. Finally the generative features that invite contribuation and that worked so well to propel the first stage of innovation begin to invite trouble and reconsideration, as the power of openness to third party contributions destabilizes its first set of gains." (p. 18)
When the original Xbox came out, coders figured out a way to modify the Xbox to many other functions. This hack gained so much popularity it turned into the Xbox Media Player. This modification was not sanctioned by Microsoft, but its popularity pressed them to develop more multimedia capabilities for the Xbox and later the XBox 360. In spite of the fact that the Xbox was a "tethered" device, coders managed to maximize the potential of a gaming console. Instead of exploiting this development, and using the generative model, Microsoft chose to block development and keep within a closed system. It incredible to me that they let all that potential go to waste.
A few weeks ago, in an effort to prevent piracy, Microsoft blocked users of modified Xbox 360 consoles from Xbox live. Now, I can understand this on one hand, many Xbox mods are ways to circumvent copyright and anti-piracy codes. So its a tradeoff, you try to cheat the system, you lose certain privileges. On the other hand, this policy also blocks people who modified their box to maximize the potential of their purchase. They paid for it, why shouldn't they be able to enhance it? By locking down controls, Microsoft not only hurts consumers but slows their own development. The creators of the initial Xbox Media Player have moved on and now have a multi-platform "media player and entertainment hub" in development. XMBC is manned by volunteers, who "write software because we enjoy doing it". Their code is currently being used by Boxee and Plex media centers. While, I am not sure why anyone would want to write code for free, it does seem that their system of collaborative, generative work is producing fun, new technology.
Zittrain points out that:
"A move to tethered appliances and Web services means that more and more of our experiences in the information space will be contingent. A service or product we use at one moment could act completely differently the next, since it can be so quickly reprogrammed without our assent." (p. 176) Exemplified when modified Xbox 360 users were shocked to find themselves cut off from Xbox live, or my own frustration when facebook changes their layout. (I still hate the live feed/news feed.)
Zittrain believes that generative spaces should be preserved. With the help of governments who can "help reinforce the the conditions necessary for generative blossoming, and they can also step in-- with all the confusion and difficulty that notoriously attends regulation of a generative space-- when mere generosity of spirit of goodwill cannot resolve conflict. But such generosity of spirit is a society's power first line of moderation."(p. 246)
This does seem a little utopian to believe that a "spirit of goodwill" can solve problems. The power and allure of money would seem to be much stronger than goodwill. But I will try to stay in Zittrain's camp and be optimistic.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Exploit
At about 9:45 Thursday night a fire broke out in the electrical room at NBC5's 3900 Barnett Street Studios in Fort Worth. The fire spread and became serious enough that the building was evacuated and the entire station lost power in the middle of the ten o'clock newscast. The ramifications of this fire extend beyond two canceled newscasts (Telemundo 39 is located in the same building) in the DFW area. Telemundo in Fort Worth provides news to other stations in the southwest region. Plus, thousands of dollars were lost because commercials were not broadcast. Since this occurred during a sweeps period, the lost viewership numbers could implicate what can be charged in the future. (Nielsen Media Research will most likely remove that night when determining NBC 5 and T 39's audience average) The Fort Worth studios also house the local news graphics hub. This means that when the building was evacuated, all the NBC-owned affiliates from WNBC in New York to KNBC in LA did not receive graphics for their newscasts. There was no one to create them. The moment the station lost power, important network connections were lost, the news producer's wire feeds, their connections to the graphics hub, the links to the NBC news video feeds, the links to the commercial hub in Atlanta, and the e-mail server based in New York and supported in India. NBC/Universal is a highly connected corporation and has used the power of networks to create efficiencies, by centralizing or "hubbing" certain duties. There is a balance of risk and reward in making these networked entities. A hub can reduce head count and maximize efficiencies, but it leaves workflow vulnerable if part of the network breaks down. The events at NBC 5 do not have the widespread repercussions of the SARS virus or an internet worm. But it does follow some of the characteristics of network behavior according to this week's reading. In The Exploit: A Theory of Networks, Alexander R. Galloway and Eugene Thacker say:
The problem is the networks we enjoy and require for so much of life are also the means through which things like disease or computer viruses easily spread. And seemingly separate networks can effect each other. As Galloway and Thacker point out when talking about SARS:
This seems to be a very optimistic view of networks, but it seems we don't have a choice, the networks will grow and we will continue to be more connected.
The incident at NBC 5 probably won't effect NBC/Universal's use of network resources to create efficiencies. There are more divisions to be hubbed. (I hear accounting and finance are next. . .)
". . . it is in the nature of networks to transgress boundaries of all kinds--institutional, disciplinary, national, technical and ideological. As illustrated previously, a single entity such as computer worm or pouch of powdered anthrax immediately draws together a range of network nodes. . ." (p.97)An electrical fire in one building affected the institution that is NBC 5/T 39, spread to other related institutions (WNBC, KNBC, etc..) it effected the the local Nielsen process and its network of sample households, and of course it effected the community of viewers who saw the stations abruptly go to black. Galloway and Thacker say:
"While networks can be individuated and identified quite easily, networks are also always "more than one." Networks are multiplicities, not because they are constructed of numerous parts but because they are organized around the principle of perpetual inclusion." (p.60)Because of the network structures in place, it is impossible for there to be an "isolated incident". The only way to prevent this would be to break up the very structure that makes the institution viable.
The problem is the networks we enjoy and require for so much of life are also the means through which things like disease or computer viruses easily spread. And seemingly separate networks can effect each other. As Galloway and Thacker point out when talking about SARS:
The efficiency of the world's transportation networks led to the virus spreading internationally. On the other hand, the increased connectivity and collaboration of scientists led to a quick identification, isolation and treatment. Do networks fail when a virus is spread? Galloway and Thacker believe;
"But SARS is also much more than just a biological network-- it brings together other networks together such as transportation, institutional, and communications networks." (p.89)
"There are as many lessons to be learned from the "failures" of networks as there are from the successes. Perhaps we can note that a network fails only when it works too well, when it provides too little room for change within its grand robustness, as the example of the computer virus illustrates. . . If a network contains its own failure, then is also contains its own transgression of borders." (p. 96-97)
In this way, networks fail only when they succeed. Networks cultivate the flood, but the flood is what can take down the network." (p. 96)Galloway and Thacker assert that the best way to navigate this interconnected world is to "scale up, not unplug. Then during the passage of technology into the this injured, engorged, and unguarded condition, it will be sculpted into something better, something in closer agreement with the real wants and desires of its users."
This seems to be a very optimistic view of networks, but it seems we don't have a choice, the networks will grow and we will continue to be more connected.
The incident at NBC 5 probably won't effect NBC/Universal's use of network resources to create efficiencies. There are more divisions to be hubbed. (I hear accounting and finance are next. . .)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Thoughts on Six Degrees
This weekend a friend posted this video of a happy dog seeing his owner for the first time after his deployment in Afghanistan. Of course its heartwarming to see a dog so happy, But the info posted by Capt. Andrew Schmidt is fascinating. He describes is own shock as a video he posted on April 11, 2008 became a sensation a year and a half later. He posts on November 14, "This is getting crazy. They ran this on the Today Show today. I'm not a public person ... this is getting a little intimidating. I'm glad that this clip of Gracie has made so many people happy." On the 15th he says "You have to be careful, because you have no control when you go on TV unless you are very, very savvy (I am not). Or you get crazy and end up building a UFO weather balloon in your back yard."
What is it about this particular video? Why did this one go viral?
In his book Six Degrees: The Science of A Connected Age Duncan Watts is attempting to explain this phenomena. Watts gives a broad overview of the history of network theory and small worlds. He discusses the famous Stanley Milgram experiments and how it led to the the term "Six Degrees of Separation". From there he explains how his own experiments and that of his colleagues, give further insight into the way networks behave. He shows that networks made up of completely different things can still behave in similar ways. One of his first tests was to compare the actors (six degrees of Kevin Bacon), electrical power grids, and the bacterium C. Elegans. All three groups qualify as small world networks because they had some "mechanism by which two nodes that are connected to a common third node are more likely to be connected to each other than two nodes picked at random." (p. 97) Even though small world networks can be found everywhere, they are not the only type of network. Watts spend most of the book finding the similarities in different networks and then points out the discrepancies in these findings. It can be a little frustrating. Just when you think Watts is going to lay down a mathematical formula that will predict network behavior, he instead shows the many ways the network is unpredictable. But, he believes studying them can give insight as to why events happen in a particular way. Watts explains:
Beyond the explanation and overview of network theory, the book is a narrative about how one scientists' own social network led to many studies, experiments and ultimately the book. Each time Watts introduces a new colleague or thinker, he gives an account of how he came to know them. He's illustrating once again the breadth of small world networks, even as he explains them.
Here are some last thoughts:
If Manovich divides new media into two forms the database and the narrative, where does the network fit in? The very fact that we are so connected through a network allows the databases to be built. Without a network there is no Wikipedia, or Huffington post or Youtube.
Is there a bit of MacLuhan in Watts' work? Is the network as "medium" also the message?
What is it about this particular video? Why did this one go viral?
In his book Six Degrees: The Science of A Connected Age Duncan Watts is attempting to explain this phenomena. Watts gives a broad overview of the history of network theory and small worlds. He discusses the famous Stanley Milgram experiments and how it led to the the term "Six Degrees of Separation". From there he explains how his own experiments and that of his colleagues, give further insight into the way networks behave. He shows that networks made up of completely different things can still behave in similar ways. One of his first tests was to compare the actors (six degrees of Kevin Bacon), electrical power grids, and the bacterium C. Elegans. All three groups qualify as small world networks because they had some "mechanism by which two nodes that are connected to a common third node are more likely to be connected to each other than two nodes picked at random." (p. 97) Even though small world networks can be found everywhere, they are not the only type of network. Watts spend most of the book finding the similarities in different networks and then points out the discrepancies in these findings. It can be a little frustrating. Just when you think Watts is going to lay down a mathematical formula that will predict network behavior, he instead shows the many ways the network is unpredictable. But, he believes studying them can give insight as to why events happen in a particular way. Watts explains:
"Networks share resources and distribute loads, and they also spread disease and transmit failure--they are both good and bad. By specifying precisely how connected systems are connected, and by drawing explicit relationships between the structure of real networks and the behavior (like epidemics, fads, and organizational robustness) of the systems they connect, the science of networks can help us understand our world." (p. 303)
Beyond the explanation and overview of network theory, the book is a narrative about how one scientists' own social network led to many studies, experiments and ultimately the book. Each time Watts introduces a new colleague or thinker, he gives an account of how he came to know them. He's illustrating once again the breadth of small world networks, even as he explains them.
Here are some last thoughts:
If Manovich divides new media into two forms the database and the narrative, where does the network fit in? The very fact that we are so connected through a network allows the databases to be built. Without a network there is no Wikipedia, or Huffington post or Youtube.
Is there a bit of MacLuhan in Watts' work? Is the network as "medium" also the message?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Smells Like Teens
Smell like teens...
When I go see a movie at Northpark Mall I often have this moment of "Wow, that's what teenagers look like now, I haven't seen one in a while." In my neighborhood, you see a lot of parents with young children, married couples without kids, and singles, but teenagers are quite rare. I forget the limited number of public spaces that are available to people under 18. I remember in high school walking the aisles of the 24 Hour Kroger just because it was open and we still had time before we were expected to be home. Teens seek out places where they can express themselves away from the watchful eyes of teachers and parents. Its in these places that they form their identities, as individuals apart from their parents. Now, with all the anti-loitering and teen curfew laws there are even fewer public spaces that are available to teens. As danah boyd explains in "Taken Out of Context" teens have turned to social media as their public space and it is an important part of expressing their identity. (p.171) Boyd provides a great number of anecdotes about how teens use myspace and facebook as forms of expression and interaction. The design and content of their pages, and even the service they choose (facebook vs. myspace or both)are reflections of how they want to represented.
What I found most interesting and a little disturbing is how fear underlies many of the decisions teens make about their online identities.
Many were reluctant to join social media because they were afraid of sexual predators. They are encouraged to lie and hide information in order to be "safe". While parents seem to fear that any minute a stalker will come out of the computer and grab their child, the teens seem to have a good understanding of safe and reasonable behavior. As boyd points out:
What a good kid. Its frustrating that so many children have to work through these basically unfounded fears to navigate their social world. From the moment teens were labeled as a demographic group, adults have feared the things teen love. Comic books, rock and roll, video games, Dungeons and Dragons (also known by its made-for-tv movie name "Mazes and Monsters"), are the source of danger, ignoring the real causes of social problems like neglect, poverty, or addiction. Boyd explains:
Also, its easier to blame an aspect of media than to accept the fact that sometimes random, terrible things happen and there is no one to blame. By focusing anxiety towards media parents are able to feel in more control. Parents can use the issue of safety as a means to limit the independence of their child. They are able to justify invading a child's privacy if they suspect their child is involved in risky behavior.
boyd's work also made me think about the decisions I make on social media, and how I don't believe adult habits are that much different from teen's. As adults we like to think that our mediated social group is not filled with quite as much drama or angst. But, I have friends who suffered the wrath of thier wives for a thoughtless status update or comment, and even one person who lost their job because of something they posted on myspace. Personally, I'll admit to having tiny sense of outrage when someone "defriended" me. I hadn't been there in a long time but looking at my myspace profile made me wonder how much had I changed from the girl who plastered her bedroom walls with pictures of James Dean, John Lennon and INXS. And yes, I'm a little hesitant about showing you the old myspace profile, but what the heck. Hopefully you won't judge me too harshly.
Lastly the whole myspace vs. facebook thing reminds of the debate in the sixties amongst teenage girls. Beatles or Rolling Stones.
(I pick the Beatles even though picking the Stones would mean I'm edgier.)
Thanks for reading. Only 3 Blogs left!
When I go see a movie at Northpark Mall I often have this moment of "Wow, that's what teenagers look like now, I haven't seen one in a while." In my neighborhood, you see a lot of parents with young children, married couples without kids, and singles, but teenagers are quite rare. I forget the limited number of public spaces that are available to people under 18. I remember in high school walking the aisles of the 24 Hour Kroger just because it was open and we still had time before we were expected to be home. Teens seek out places where they can express themselves away from the watchful eyes of teachers and parents. Its in these places that they form their identities, as individuals apart from their parents. Now, with all the anti-loitering and teen curfew laws there are even fewer public spaces that are available to teens. As danah boyd explains in "Taken Out of Context" teens have turned to social media as their public space and it is an important part of expressing their identity. (p.171) Boyd provides a great number of anecdotes about how teens use myspace and facebook as forms of expression and interaction. The design and content of their pages, and even the service they choose (facebook vs. myspace or both)are reflections of how they want to represented.
What I found most interesting and a little disturbing is how fear underlies many of the decisions teens make about their online identities.
Many were reluctant to join social media because they were afraid of sexual predators. They are encouraged to lie and hide information in order to be "safe". While parents seem to fear that any minute a stalker will come out of the computer and grab their child, the teens seem to have a good understanding of safe and reasonable behavior. As boyd points out:
"Teens had numerous strategies for staying safe, many of which mirrored the strategies that adults and safety organizations perpetuated. Upset that teens were being restricted from social network sites, Danny, a 17-year-old from Florida, emailed me with a list of safety guidelines that he thought all teens should adopt:
A) Only accept “Buddy Requests” from people you know personally/are bands.(Cheesy, I know, but it’s the safest way. I have around fifty-eight friends, and I can tell you their name, address, or what their most popular songs are).
B) Don’t give out personal information. (I don’t have my school listed even! State and City, that’s it. Don’t give it when asked.)
C) When posting a picture, ask if it shows you in a positive manner, and if it is something you would wear to go visit your grandparents/religious leader. (Mine are!)
D) Keep your parents involved. If you hide things from them, they will find out, and you will get in trouble. Be open with them—most of the time, they are cool about stuff like this." (p.284)
What a good kid. Its frustrating that so many children have to work through these basically unfounded fears to navigate their social world. From the moment teens were labeled as a demographic group, adults have feared the things teen love. Comic books, rock and roll, video games, Dungeons and Dragons (also known by its made-for-tv movie name "Mazes and Monsters"), are the source of danger, ignoring the real causes of social problems like neglect, poverty, or addiction. Boyd explains:
"Research shows that teens are not randomly at risk; psychosocial problems combined with risky behaviors are the key predictors of risk
(Ybarra and Mitchell 2008). In other words, the teens others see as “stupid” for not understanding how to be safe may actually be dealing with much larger personal issues." (p. 273)
Also, its easier to blame an aspect of media than to accept the fact that sometimes random, terrible things happen and there is no one to blame. By focusing anxiety towards media parents are able to feel in more control. Parents can use the issue of safety as a means to limit the independence of their child. They are able to justify invading a child's privacy if they suspect their child is involved in risky behavior.
boyd's work also made me think about the decisions I make on social media, and how I don't believe adult habits are that much different from teen's. As adults we like to think that our mediated social group is not filled with quite as much drama or angst. But, I have friends who suffered the wrath of thier wives for a thoughtless status update or comment, and even one person who lost their job because of something they posted on myspace. Personally, I'll admit to having tiny sense of outrage when someone "defriended" me. I hadn't been there in a long time but looking at my myspace profile made me wonder how much had I changed from the girl who plastered her bedroom walls with pictures of James Dean, John Lennon and INXS. And yes, I'm a little hesitant about showing you the old myspace profile, but what the heck. Hopefully you won't judge me too harshly.
Lastly the whole myspace vs. facebook thing reminds of the debate in the sixties amongst teenage girls. Beatles or Rolling Stones.
(I pick the Beatles even though picking the Stones would mean I'm edgier.)
Thanks for reading. Only 3 Blogs left!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Foucault and Nakamura
Foucault: Discipline and Punish
Everyday our decisions are influenced by the fact that someone may be watching us. I don't speed during my morning commute because of the friendly officers with radar guns. I'm careful not turn right on that red light, because of the newly installed camera.
In "Discipline and Punish", Foucault compares modern society to the Panopticon. The Panopticon was a prison design invented by Jeremy Bentham. The idea behind the Panopticon was to design a prison where a single guard could see all the prisoners but remain unseen. The fact the prisoners know that they are possibly being watched will make them behave. Foucault explains " . . . the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. " (470) The Panopticon was never actually constructed, but Foucault used this idea to form the social theory of panopticism. He explains that society has two types of disciplinary images the discipline-blockade and the discipline-mechanism. The discipline-blockade wields it power in enclosed institutions, that separate groups of individuals. Prisons, schools and hospitals are examples. The discipline-mechanism affects an entire population and relies on surveillance to force the population into compliance. Foucault named this mobile and extendible societal formation panopticism.
In our panoptic society we accept the fact authorities and other citizens are watching us and adjust our behavior accordingly. Its a quiet almost invisible form of discipline.
Over the years there has been much debate about an individual's privacy vs. the public good. People feared the surveillance and it was manifested with terms like Big Brother. Now, privacy does not seem to hold as much importance. In a post 9/11 world, citizens seem more willing to be watched, searched and recorded assuming that this makes the world a safer place. Also, and perhaps more accurately, people volunteer private information in the name of convenience, or entertainment. Its a cheery happy panopticon, where we are aware of being watched and we're comfortable with it. In fact, we use it to our gain. In this CNN.com article Pete Cashmore, claims that privacy is dead and that being too private can damage your career, and ultimately leave you marginalized in society. We are encouraged to reveal information in order to make friends and further our careers, while knowing that this information will be used by others to make money.
Ultimately, what are we really giving up and what are we gaining? I keep thinking about how exotic dancers will argue that they aren't being exploited, but work voluntarily. The "choice" makes it okay. But, with all the pressure to bank, register, educate, buy, and socialize online. Do we really have a choice?
Lisa Nakamura: Cybertyping and the Work of Race in the Age In Digital Reproduction
Want to get really depressed? Read the comments at the end of any article on dallasnews.com. Inevitably any social problem will be blamed on people of color. Its horrible. Yep. Racism is alive and well and reflected everyday on innumerable websites. Lisa Nakamura asserts that the internet has created a new kind of sterotyping and racism which she calls "cybertyping". She says:
Nakamura views the promise of a "post-racial democracy" as nothing more than a device to hide racism in America. She explains that "Digital reproduction produces new iterations of race and racialism, iterations with roots in those produced by mechanical reproduction. Images of race from older media are the analog signal which the Internet optimizes for digital reproduction and transmission." Instead of moving past racial stereotypes they are more easily reproduced, amplified and distributed with digital technology.
Nakamura wrote this essay a few years before blogging and social media became commonplace. Now its is much more difficult to separate your online identity from your true identity. In fact, it seems like a waste of time. How can you be social if you are not at least some semblance of yourself? What would be the point. By contributing to the blogosphere and participating in social media, minorities now have an opportunity to express and "broadcast" their viewpoint in way that was unavailable through traditional media. And the racial stereotypes and social conflicts are also more easily disseminated. I would like to hear Nakamura's comments since the election of President Obama and his campaign's use of Web 2.0.
Everyday our decisions are influenced by the fact that someone may be watching us. I don't speed during my morning commute because of the friendly officers with radar guns. I'm careful not turn right on that red light, because of the newly installed camera.
In "Discipline and Punish", Foucault compares modern society to the Panopticon. The Panopticon was a prison design invented by Jeremy Bentham. The idea behind the Panopticon was to design a prison where a single guard could see all the prisoners but remain unseen. The fact the prisoners know that they are possibly being watched will make them behave. Foucault explains " . . . the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. " (470) The Panopticon was never actually constructed, but Foucault used this idea to form the social theory of panopticism. He explains that society has two types of disciplinary images the discipline-blockade and the discipline-mechanism. The discipline-blockade wields it power in enclosed institutions, that separate groups of individuals. Prisons, schools and hospitals are examples. The discipline-mechanism affects an entire population and relies on surveillance to force the population into compliance. Foucault named this mobile and extendible societal formation panopticism.
In our panoptic society we accept the fact authorities and other citizens are watching us and adjust our behavior accordingly. Its a quiet almost invisible form of discipline.
Over the years there has been much debate about an individual's privacy vs. the public good. People feared the surveillance and it was manifested with terms like Big Brother. Now, privacy does not seem to hold as much importance. In a post 9/11 world, citizens seem more willing to be watched, searched and recorded assuming that this makes the world a safer place. Also, and perhaps more accurately, people volunteer private information in the name of convenience, or entertainment. Its a cheery happy panopticon, where we are aware of being watched and we're comfortable with it. In fact, we use it to our gain. In this CNN.com article Pete Cashmore, claims that privacy is dead and that being too private can damage your career, and ultimately leave you marginalized in society. We are encouraged to reveal information in order to make friends and further our careers, while knowing that this information will be used by others to make money.
Ultimately, what are we really giving up and what are we gaining? I keep thinking about how exotic dancers will argue that they aren't being exploited, but work voluntarily. The "choice" makes it okay. But, with all the pressure to bank, register, educate, buy, and socialize online. Do we really have a choice?
Lisa Nakamura: Cybertyping and the Work of Race in the Age In Digital Reproduction
Want to get really depressed? Read the comments at the end of any article on dallasnews.com. Inevitably any social problem will be blamed on people of color. Its horrible. Yep. Racism is alive and well and reflected everyday on innumerable websites. Lisa Nakamura asserts that the internet has created a new kind of sterotyping and racism which she calls "cybertyping". She says:
"Cybertypes are more than just racial stereotypes "ported" to a new medium. Because the Internet is interactive and collectively authored, cybertypes are created in a peculiarly collaborative way, they reflect the way that machine enabled interactivity gives rise to images of race which both stem from a common cultural logic and seek to redress anxieties about the ways that computer-enables communication can challenge these old logics. . . Cybertypes are the images of race that arise when the fears, anxieties, and desires of privileged Western users (the majority of Internet users and content producers are still from Western nations) are scripted into a textual/graphical environment that is in constant flux and revision."
Nakamura views the promise of a "post-racial democracy" as nothing more than a device to hide racism in America. She explains that "Digital reproduction produces new iterations of race and racialism, iterations with roots in those produced by mechanical reproduction. Images of race from older media are the analog signal which the Internet optimizes for digital reproduction and transmission." Instead of moving past racial stereotypes they are more easily reproduced, amplified and distributed with digital technology.
Nakamura wrote this essay a few years before blogging and social media became commonplace. Now its is much more difficult to separate your online identity from your true identity. In fact, it seems like a waste of time. How can you be social if you are not at least some semblance of yourself? What would be the point. By contributing to the blogosphere and participating in social media, minorities now have an opportunity to express and "broadcast" their viewpoint in way that was unavailable through traditional media. And the racial stereotypes and social conflicts are also more easily disseminated. I would like to hear Nakamura's comments since the election of President Obama and his campaign's use of Web 2.0.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
