Posts Tagged: week 5

In response to my questions that I posted earlier…

1. Is it possible that we may be moving towards are more humanistic internet experience with a heavier focus on user customization and social collaboration?  Is it possible that we are in the process and making the internet into a more humanistic experience?

I have to disagree with the doom and gloom predictions of Lanier. Although in the early days of the internet, there was much more rigidity and control with the “small group of software engineers” making most of the decisions but I believe that the entity of the internet has evolved beyond that. Now, more than ever, each individual user has a voice and a say in how something is presented or discussed online. People are interacting and collaborating with people all over the world, people that they would never have interacted with in the past. The internet is taking the things that make us human and amplifying them over  a global network. I don’t see this as some form of insidious mechanization but rather an aid to bring us closer as a global human community. We are now able to build community, support causes, witness and report news, and build a better world through the collaborative nature of the internet. If this is not a more humanistic internet, I don’t know what is.

I feel that Henry Jenkins has a much better idea about what is going on. He compares our evolving internet culture of collaboration and mash-up “folklore” to going back to our roots as early humans who worked together and shared our stories for the purpose of others taking them and retelling them. In his view, we are becoming more “humanistic” internet users and the Web 2.0 ideas of collaboration are making it all possible.

2.) Although Wikipedia has its share of hooligans, is it possible that it is a site that is managed by a more or less “intelligent” crowd and can be seen as a more reliable source than some of the individual experts being “drowned out”? Is crowd sourcing really as negative as Lanier seems to believe? What about the positive effects of people putting their heads together to collectively solve problems?

As we discussed in class, Wikipedia is often a hotly debated topic. It’s an encyclopedia of knowledge that almost anyone can contribute to. It relies on the “wisdom of the crowds” and this can make many people, like Lanier, uneasy about its reliability. Lanier talks about how many of the voices of true “experts” are being drowned out by the influx of everyday people inputting information in such sites as Wikipedia. However, as we saw in class this “crowd” of people who create a page on Wikipedia is more reliable than we may think.

As we went through the evolution of the umlaut Wikipedia page we observed that even when one person tried to sabotage the information, other people (many who probably could be considered “experts”) were able to repair the damages with minutes. It is this global team of experts, in countless different fields, that keeps Wikipedia as reliable as possible. Instead of drowning out the experts, sites like Wikipedia are giving voices to experts who may not have had an outlet before. This team effort can often be much more reliable than simply depending on one so-called “expert” who may be nothing more than a Wikipedia saboteur himself.

1. In response to my first question, I do believe that as humans we will adapt to our technology. The extent to which we will, I don’t believe, will inherently take over our humanistic characteristics. Although we may feel a strong attachment and dependency on our specific technologies, I know that personally, sometimes, I am happy to get away from all of it. There are situations when technology will not suffice and we need to breathe for ourselves, take in fresh air, and admire non-man made structures. And there are other times that technology becomes my tool for expression and absorption of inspirational life content.

Today in class we discussed copyright and the ways in which people have the capability nowadays to remix remixes. A question was brought up by a fellow classmate regarding the Russian pirate video stores that were depicted in the documentary, “Good Copy, Bad Copy.” She asked the question that if it is true that Russian video stores only contain about 20% of original videos, then how is it possible that they get 80% pirated material from those original works to distribute? I found that a very interested question. There is only so much, and so many different ways, that one can come up with when creating new content from other material. This being said, remixes of those remixes can than occur and then its a whole other ball game. It’s almost like a mathematical equation thats possibilities grow exponentially each time you add an extra remix. These people, such as Gregg Gillis of Girl Talk and Brian Burton of Danger Mouse, use technology as tools towards expressing their individual creativity. Ironically enough however, in the interview, Gregg Gillis stated that even though he downloads numerous amounts of digital files, there is just some nostalgic humanistic value about going to a record store and purchasing an album. This being said, it is point in case that although technological gadgets may be becoming an increasingly dependent tool, I don’t believe it can ever become the main substitution for first-hand humanistic, real-life experiences.

2. My second question is in regards to Lanier’s concept of the term “locked in”. I do believe that Lanier hit the nail on the head when he discussed this term. I highly agree with his statement that “the process of lock-in is like a wave gradually washing over the rulebook of life, culling the ambiguities of flexible thoughts as more and more thought structures are solidified into effectively permanent reality.” You can see this exemplified in the uses of the Internet, social networks, even everyday symbols such as typographical language, flags etc. Most of the population never really even questions these societal structures set in place and when they do, they really can’t do much to change it. Once a human being is conditioned into a habit (or structurized foundation), it is hard to break, especially when that habit spans across many populations on the globe. Therefore for example, I would imagine it would be extremely dififcult for new software systems to cater to musicians through something other than MIDI (discussed on pgs.9-12) because MIDI is used by everyone and therefore an already acceptable tool. To question that and form something completely new, as well as try to establish that idea everywhere just so other people can access and use it, especially if its just equivalent or slightly better than the preexisting tool, is nearly impossible. The best example that I can think of thus far is the blu-ray dvd player. Even though blu-ray may produce a slightly better picture quality, it has been nearly impossible to get Americans to switch over solely to using only these players. If DVD’s are still being made, and they remain to be significantly cheaper than blue-ray discs, American’s will prefer to purchase them. Unfortunately, even if the new ideas potentially create better tools and better content quality, people will always be resistant to change if something existing benefits them almost just as easily.

3. In brief response to my third question asking about Henry Jenkins thoughts about amateurization, I believe that digital amateurization development will never fully replace main stream content. There are some inherent differences that will always remain static. Mainstream content serves a different purpose than amateurization content. In this, I am referring to the quality vs. quantity conundrum. Although the Internet might be a more effective tool when locating and gathering information efficiently, it sometimes lacks the quality experience of mainstream content. I am not only talking about the so-called “trustworthy professionals” behind the scenes or the “polished content” that is produced, but I am discussing the distribution approaches. There is still something very appealing about going to see a movie at a movie theater for example, or even physically holding a periodical or a book.

Each technological device serves a purpose. This is why we juggle back and forth between the various ones on a day by day basis in order to receive the fulfillment that we need (uses and gratificatoins theory).

In regards to the Tosh.0 and Web Soup categories, as well as The Social Network, I believe that once again it is just media convergence at its finest. They’re taking inspirations from the Web, producing resalable content, and distributing it for money to the masses for a profit (or ratings). Truly, its ingenious.

1. In the novel “You Are Not a Gadget,  A Manifesto”, Lanier discusses the psychological ways that humans inherit technology as a second nature and how potentially dangerous these dependencies are in our lives. He states that our gadgets are structures that have the capability to “change how you conceive of yourself and the world”. He then goes ahead and states that computer programmers and technological developers have no need to argue their case because, “it only takes a tiny group of engineers to create technology that can shape the entire future of human experience with incredible speed.” Now, as a person who just recently purchased an iPhone 4 because I felt a dire need to do it, I have begun to worry about my own dependency on technology. I check the Internet at least 20 times a day and am either texting or talking on my phone for a total of at least an hour or two everyday. As technological developers continue to create more tools for humans to become social and more informative/addicted to technology, will we as human race begin acting as a technological device ourselves? Will we begin to absorb ourselves into our devices so much that it, in essence, becomes second nature or another limb of our body that we must simply can’t live without?

2. Lanier often brings up this notion of “locked in” when he refers to particular computer software and the way things simply have to be accepted due to the inherent software that have been already manifested and adapted to by the population. With this concept of being “locked in” by particular software that have already been developed and constantly re-developed through newer versions of the same software, is he implying that this concept locks inhibits some of the human mind’s creative development process in regards to computer programming because of all the other software that have already been set in stone? Does the computer’s current software packages and computer programs inhibit the creative processes and further development of other, possibly better software that could potentially be created? In essence, does the limitless possibilities gadget, the computer, technically inhibit itself because of its accepted, workable mainstream support software systems that are currently in existence,  that which bicariously also impede new developments that aren’t supported on that scale?

3. In, Henry Jenkin’s essay entitled “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars? Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture?” he discusses the notion of digital amateurization development of content and this new participatory culture that has sprung out of the digital web. With this being said, amateurization is all about individuals outside of a professional scene creating content that can be distributed easily on the web, without high transaction and development costs, which differs greatly from mainstream content corporations. Will amateurization, then, one day completely replace mainstream content-development companies and level it to a diffusion of competition for all developers or will it simply add to and build other corporate entities such as the television shows Tosh.0 and Web Soup as well as the movie The Social Network? All of this content is gathered from the web, rather than gathered from other means and put onto the web. Therefore, are these two ways of developing and distributing content a type of media convergence in and of its ownself?