Sep 26 2010
You Are Not a Gadget
1) Lanier discusses the fad of anonymity at several different points in the first section of his book. He views the trend as essentially undoing the collective connective power of the early Internet in which people worked cooperatively together. Is this view still relevant and is this trend still current? I’m researching the disappearance of privacy through the willingness of Internet users to disclose personal information about themselves online. I see almost the opposite trend taking place in today’s Internet culture.
2) Lanier discusses the economics of a social network site and uses Facebook to illustrate his points. He states that the only viable formula for profiting from social networking is to violate the privacy rights of users. The question now becomes whether or not current users can gradually be cajoled into accepting intrusions into their privacy. This is the question of my research paper. Hopefully I’ll be able to answer this by Thursday!
3) When arguing for better interface design that would discourage online “trolling” through anonymity, Lanier seemingly contradicts his plea for a less constricting interface template – the kind of templates that rob us of our personalities and translate into fragmented bits of our former selves. Is there a viable solution to this dilemma? Are we already so spell-bound by current templates of self expression that we are unable to think outside of its boxes to other possibilities?
4) Lanier also discusses the centrality of advertising to the digital economy. Do we tolerate an enormous amount of digital advertising because we realize that it is the key to maintaining a free information flow from producer to consumer online?
September 29th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
1) In addressing the fad of anonymity to respond to this question, I realized that social networks may in fact be a reaction to anonymous blogs and discussion boards. These types of interfaces can easily de-evolve into nasty online behaviors, but the social network is an easy way to insulate one’s self from these tendencies. I felt the need to research outside of my opinion for this question, because I do not use the Internet anonymously. It turns out that there are far fewer trolls than Jaron Lanier fears. This article really says it all:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112450627
I especially agree with the point that the author makes by saying that things aren’t as interesting to read from an anonymous publisher. It may be fun for the writer, but little fun for the reader. It’s ironic because I was already enjoying “You Are Not a Gadget,” but became much more intrigued when I saw Lanier’s picture on the back jacket. The other interesting points that this article make have to do with the legality of posting slanderous material online. We are seeing an evolution in the organization and regulation of the Internet that did not exist a few years ago. It’s every bit as important to keep up with new laws surrounding content as it is to keep up with changing technology.
2) I haven’t read through enough of the sources I am gathering to fully answer this question but I’m very excited to investigate this topic! I found it very interesting that he brought up this point because that seems to be the direction that all of social media is heading toward. I do feel that users are gradually accepting the benefits that come with giving up privacy and choosing to ignore the cons. I feel that as long as a service or product holds a great enough utilitarian value for the user, they will be willing to let go of much of their privacy to continue using. In terms of social network sites like Facebook, I almost feel that we are at the will of Mark Zuckerberg. Peer pressure is certainly a factor when it comes to users feeling that they would give up privacy and personal information to use Facebook. I found it hard to believe that Facebook had not made a significant profit from advertising, but perhaps that has changed since this book was published. On the other hand, many of the advertisements that are shown on my page are more for causes and ideas than products.
3) I thought that this was a really profound question that we should ask ourselves as future developers and designers. It’s hard and almost daunting for me to think about the kinds of interfaces that will dominate our online experience in the coming years. It’s easy enough to predict broader tendencies like media convergence into hand-held device and Internet enabled televisions, but it’s much harder to predict social trends. It’s amazing how complicated it becomes to map out where our interests will take us considering all of the consumer research that companies invest money towards. I have found myself frustrated at my inabilities to think outside of the box in terms of new ways to present interactive materials.
4) This is also a topic of great interest to me. I do believe that we tolerate copious amounts of advertising online because we know that it keeps the cost of our usage to a minimum and most of the time for no cost at all. I recently purchased a membership to Pandora Radio, and now I can listen to an unlimited amount of hours with no advertising at all. This hits on the utilitarian feature that I mentioned earlier. Pandora provides a service that I hold to be important, and one that I use often enough for me to feel justified in paying $40/year for it. Some sites are experimenting with the way that users view advertisers in some creative ways. The site OMGpop.com is a gaming site geared towards a younger crowd but used by a variety of people. There are game rounds and in between the rounds there is a one or two minute break. During this time snippets of advertisements are shown. If a user chooses to watch the entire ad over the snippet, they receive coins. The users can then use the coins to buy digital items to personalize their OMGpop profiles. This is pretty ingenious and also incredibly interactive. Giving users incentives to pay attention to online advertisements as opposed to ignoring them is a viable option for many sites and definitely an option that should be explored more by advertising agencies.