Barney and Andrejevic

              This weeks readings highlight the negative effects of network technologies. What a downer. Barney argues, “the networked computerization of production makes it flexible customizable, and responsive because when process information is reduced to standardized, universal form of bits that can be exchanged almost instantaneously and with considerable reliability across vast distances in great volumes, the need for friction-ridden human labor is greatly reduced” (Barney, 136).  I personally don’t view this as negative as Barney paints it to be. True, at the moment this is creating a large unemployment rate and jobs that are temporary and/or unreliable. This is the changing environment and we, as a society, need to adapt to it. “Flexible, customizable, and responsive” technologies are a good thing! This stimulates the economy. Unfortunately there the labor force is too large. As a result, we need some serious population control. We need to fight that biological urge to reproduce and have 5+ children. Lets keep it to three or less okay? Preferably two. I would say one, but I think that having a sibling is an important part of social development, lol. But honestly, there must be an algorithm that could indicate the appropriate population needed for optimal economic functioning, in addition to the health of the earth in relation to depleting resources.

            Another concern was the degradation and surveillance of unskilled workers. This is a legitimate concern. If workers increasingly do not have anything to distinguish themselves from others, then job opportunities are limited, which means that the monomaniac capitalist boss gets to dictate the turf rules as a result of the unskilled worker being forced to choose between unemployment vs. the conditions of the boss. Barney points out that “computerized surveillance is more extensive because it can be applied to a growing number of occupational categories and to a broader range of activities within those categories” (Barney, 156). This oddly is not of much concern to me. I have faith that some sort of legislation to monitor personal information would limit corporations from this unethical behavior. As far as monitoring worker performance, go right ahead if you think it will improve productivity, of course it might lower moral and thus lower productivity, but who knows? I’m not an industrial psychologist or an economist.

            Of course I wrote this before I actually read Andrejevic’s work. Evidently there are database companies that “keep lists of people who take Prozac for depression, believe in the bible, gamble online, an buy sex toys” (Andrejevic, 7) That’s mildly horrifying, but I assume it is for marketing reasons, not some creepy Big Brotha’ conspiracy. In fact, I think that’s great. Maybe Veronica will find a top of the line sex toy as a result of this sophisticated monitoring system. The problem comes in our desire for privacy. No one wants his or her name to be publicly linked to a sex toy…usually, *shifts eyes.* Moreover, why not keep track of people who are looking up how to blow up a plane? I would also like to comment on Andrejevic’s section on “watching each other.” I mean, this was really kind of funny. At work, “keystroke monitoring programs serve as a means to both monitor and discipline employees” (Andrejevic, 227). Moreover, spouses were using software to track their adulterous partners. For me, this is a human problem. If you have a cheating spouse and you are neurotic enough to buy software to check, go right ahead. If you are a parole officer monitoring a pedophile, go right ahead. I feel like I should be more concerned about privacy, but I view these advances as practical. 

Trippi, Kelly, & Lurie

            I think that the potential for a more egalitarian, freer, more productive, happier society with the advent of the Internet and the gradual withering away of old ways of communicating is definitely possible. I’ve spoken about the Egyptian Facebook revolution in my other blog. I think that this example beautifully outlines that it is possible for the Internet to act as a medium for encouraging egalitarian nations. However, in this blog I would like to focus on internal issues within American society, as the readings this week did.

            The Internet definitely opens doors to many things. We have access to a plethora of information. “The idea of a universal information port was considered uneconomical, and too futuristic to be real in our lifetimes. Yet at any hour of today, most readers of this paper have access to the full text of the Encyclopedia Britannica (or as I prefer, wikepedia), precise map directions to anywhere in the country, stock quotes in real time, local weather forecasts with radar pictures…etc.” (Kelly). This vast net of information can lead the citizen to participate more rationally in society and in a form that encourages democracy because she is more prepared to make educated decisions.

            This idea seems too optimistic. It seems that there is an atmosphere of apathy within the population. We can see this with the lack of voting. This really irks me. Neither my boyfriend (22 yrs old), my best friend (22), nor my younger brother (20) are registered to vote. The fact that I can’t even convince them to vote reflects the apathy, which sucks because all the crazy old bible humpers get to dictate the laws. Moreover, as a result of apathy, we enable capitalism to create monomaniacs. The idea that “billionaires and multimillionaires can bundle together obscene sums of money and use it to buy our government and perpetuate their own wealth and power while our nation’s problems are ignored,” is especially unsettling (Trippi, 235). Therefore I am forced to say that the authors are potentially overly optimistic. It honestly relies on the public. Do we not support the ideology of having billionaires because it could potentially be us one day?

            The problem is that I don’t like that corporation can basically buy laws that enable them to take advantage of our nations resources. I don’t want to enable a drug user, nor do I want to enable the monomaniac. Social media and new technologies deplore “traditional belief systems even as it creates a belief in a kind of heavenly paradise, a kind of Technopia” (Lurie). Within this Technopia we have access to knowledge that we can use as our weapons against the very hypocrisy that is demonstrated by the monomaniacs preaching for democracy, while they endorse the stupidest things. As Benjamin Franklin (supposedly) said to some woman who asked, “what type of government have you bequeathed us?” – “A republic, if you can keep it.” And I choose to keep it, to continue to educate myself, and to continue to vote, even if others don’t.

Gilder, Negroponte, & Barlow

Modern media definitely has an aspect of emancipatory power. It provides an outlet for the individual to quickly introduce an idea to a larger population. If those who were exposed to it share the idea, then they can collectively communicate and decide to take action. We see this through the example of the 2011 Facebook revolution in Egypt. As Barlow, in his essay on A Cyberspace Independence Declaration puts it, “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Egypt was able to literally make their own cyber declaration of independence. “We Are All Khaled Saeed” is a facebook group that formed in the aftermath of Saeed's beating and death by police. The group attracted hundreds of thousands of members worldwide and played a prominent role in spreading and bringing attention to the growing discontent. Facebook was used to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world. Asmaa Mahfouz, a female activist who posted a video in which she challenged people to publicly protest, made another potent viral online contribution. I realize this isn’t directly drawn from the readings, however, the use of the social media as a tool for emancipation is so prominent here. Moreover, the fact that it gives a voice to women parallels the importance of the role the social media has in changing gender roles, even in a very patriarchical society like Egypt.

            The role of mass communication is an interesting one because it draws on the ideologies of other cultures. In the information age, mass media got bigger and smaller at the same time. We are communicating to a broader base, however, the demographic of varying beliefs narrows. Negroponte points out that, “new forms of broadcast like CNN and USA Today reach larger audiences and make broadcast broader.” On the same train of thought, Gilder says, “television heavily determined which books and magazines we read…and which politicians prospered and collapsed” (8). The use of the social media was used as a tool, but there is also an aspect of a global consciousness. The people of Egypt were able to look at other ideologies and political systems and evaluate the effectiveness of their own.