William Gibson, in his 1984 novel Neuromancer, imagined an alternate hallucinatory world, an open "cyberspace" defended by the likes of the creative and talented people who helped build it (4). However, as Tim Wu illustrates in his book The Master Switch, it can be extremely difficult for the innovators of a technology to keep control of it in the face of powerful corporations. In an economy largely run by major conglomerates, especially when it comes to information industries, it is questionable whether or not a future like the one Gibson presents is even possible. The Internet, arguably the broadest information technology to date, would be a major source of both money and influence for large companies were they to control it. Moreover, Gibson's vision of cyberspace is far too limited in form and user base to be accessed as widely or to be as influential as the Internet is today.
It is true that new technologies are usually born out of the tireless work of creative individuals with little or no support behind them. Wu quickly points this out when he speaks of Alexander Bell and his assistant "toiling in their small attic laboratory" to create the telephone (18). It is an inspiring image; two dedicated men, working endlessly of their own accord, who managed to create a technology that would completely transform human communication. Of course, this innovation also gave rise to one of the biggest monopolies in information technology history: AT&T.
Once a technology is created it is natural for a few companies to seize and maintain control of it. They often do this at the cost of individual inventors who companies simultaneously rely on for innovation and exploit for their own money and power. Take, for instance, the development of FM radio. Essentially an improved version of AM radio, FM had better sound quality and didn't use as much power for its broadcast (Wu 128). But FM was too good. Because it posed a threat to the existing radio broadcasters and also could have eliminated the need for AT&T's long distance lines, the technology was buried for several decades until the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) was able to establish adequate control and regulation over the technology (132).
Companies feel threatened by disruptive technologies which they view as at odds with their own interests. Because such innovation is usually the work of one or two people it is not difficult for companies to take control, through the use of money, the law or even illegal activity, to spin the odds in their favor. When RCA placed FM technology in their televisions, they did so without the permission of the inventor, Edwin Armstrong, assuming that a large company with extensive resources would have no problem winning a lawsuit against an individual inventor. They were right. RCA, denying that Armstrong had even invented the technology, won the lawsuit. Shortly thereafter, Armstrong ended his life (134).
This phenomenon is one reason why Gibson's future is so unlikely. Companies will generally try to gain control of influential technologies in order to enhance their own power and influence. It is unlikely that the Internet, the most pervasive and widespread information technology today, will prove an exception to this rule. If anything, the fight to control the Internet will probably be the strongest and most contested one yet. It is nearly impossible for individuals to maintain any defense when a corporation decides that they want to control something. The economic assets and resources of a large corporation are simply too great for most individuals to successfully fight.
Even beyond the desire for power and wealth, companies and possibly even the government may try to gain increased control over the Internet for regulation of content. Because the Internet reaches so many people the stakes are very high. Always seeking to shape public opinion in their favor, companies with content control over the internet would hold an unprecedented amount of power. However, a completely open Internet leaves a lot of room for dissenting ideas that may be just as threatening to companies or governments as disruptive technologies tend to be.
Control of ideas is grounded in the history of information industries as well. In the 1920s, a strict production code was placed over Hollywood filmmakers in the name of "decency and Christian morality" (Wu 118). The goal behind the code was to support the status quo without allowing any alternative ideas or questionable behaviors to be presented to the public (115). Films, shown all over the country, were being regulated to severely limit the content that the American public was able to see. Hollywood became a medium to perpetuate the ideas of the few who had created the code rather than a mode of free and creative expression. This is powerful because the creators of the code had the opportunity to attempt to instill their values into the American public at large without any competition.
Throughout his novel, Gibson presents exactly the type of free dissent that threatens large entities. As Case and Molly weave their way through cyberspace they gain access to information that allows them to break down the barriers created by the extremely powerful Tessier-Ashpool clan. This is what companies will seek to prevent by gaining control over content. Free reign over the Internet is threatening to the businesses or governmental regimes whose practices are not always the most noble. When people have the ability to communicate and access information without regulation it puts these organizations at serious risk. In some countries, such as China, Internet censorship already exists. The Chinese government controls what content citizens see in order to shape their opinions and prevent dissent. Companies and other powerful organizations will use the vast resources at their disposal to make sure they maintain power by gaining as much control as they can over the content that individuals can access.
Even if certain content is not completely outlawed, companies may be able to control who is able to access what content. So far, such controls are being implemented with little problem but it could be a slippery slope. The current film rating system (G, PG, R, X), which was instituted in 1968, allows for the creation of content that would have once been deemed entirely inappropriate to be released for selected audiences (Wu 166). The rating system works because it is mainly a set of guidelines that leaves the ultimate decision about what films to view up to individuals or, in the case of minors, up to the parents. An open network is maintained with the addition of warnings about types of content. This system of ratings and parental controls has been adapted to television and video games as well. It is also starting to be used on the Internet. While a mix of freedom and regulation seems to be working for multiple forms of content so far, it is important to realize that companies hungry for control and with the means to seize it will generally have no qualms about doing so. To prevent it from tipping toward systematic control over who may view what content, this balance between free reign and control must be diligently protected.
Gibson's future is possibly most unlikely because it limits Internet access to a few talented professionals. Cyberspace as Gibson imagined it is a highly immersive technology in which one's consciousness actually enters into the network; a "consensual hallucination" as Gibson puts it (6). Such an experience requires more of a commitment by the user. Gibson's Internet is not the casual communications interface that we know today but rather a more specialized technology. Navigating Gibson's cyberspace takes more skill and is therefore more naturally limiting. Indeed, there is no mention of general public use of cyberspace in Gibson's novel. The entire story centers on Case, Molly and a handful of experienced others. Given the context that Gibson provides, it is difficult to imagine casual, everyday use of his version of cyberspace.
In order to sustain itself, an information technology needs to appeal to a widespread set of users who are confident in their abilities to use the technology to their convenience. Gibson provides no evidence that his vision of cyberspace allows for this. Rather, it seems that Case and Molly use cyberspace in increasingly complex ways. Without a widespread set of users it is unlikely that Gibon's matrix would remain a force for long in the technological world because more useful and user-friendly technologies would replace it. In Gibson's world, individuals are able to maintain control over cyberspace but this is probably due to the fact that it would not be highly appealing to large companies. If there is not a widespread set of users then the technology is not lucrative for the company and it does not allow them to shape public opinion in their favor.
However, the interface that we have today reaches across the industrialized world to a widespread set of users everyday. This makes it appealing to companies looking to expand their influence and build capital. Wu shows that corporate control of information industries does not generally bother users so long as it does not negatively affect individual experience. It could even sometimes be useful in providing better service to customers (161). The promise of extensive wealth and power mixed with the ambivalence of the public creates an ideal climate for large companies to exercise control.
It could be argued that the Internet is fundamentally different than any other previous information technology industries and therefore not subject to the same fate. The Internet was created with the intention that it would be a decentralized, open network (Wu 170). This means that it will have ardent defenders trying to make sure it remains that way. However, because the scope and influence of the Internet is so great it will also be highly appealing to corporations hungry for market control. Unless corporations also adopt an ideology that values an open network the future of Internet control will continue to be a heated debate. But if a few large corporations decide, in the perfect moment, to seize control over the network there will be little that any individual can do to stop them.
Works Cited:
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Penguin, 1984. Print.
Wu, Tim. The Master Switch. New York: Random, 2010. Print.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
UR Students and Gamers; More Alike Than We Think.
After reading Julian Dibbel's Play Money and watching the documentary Second Skin, both of which serve as a peek into the world of online gaming, my class did a short writing exercise about how UR students are different from (obsessive) gamers. The differences, such as significance of family and social relationships or moderation of time, aren't tough to see. But it got me thinking; how are we alike?
My immediate thought is the concept of the "bubble." Gamers, especially those portrayed in Second Skin, became almost complete recluses. They confined themselves entirely to the online gaming world and only left the screen long enough to perhaps go to work. The most significant part of their lives was the game and the relationships within the game.
I can't help but see a parallel to UR which is often even referred to as "the bubble." Much as in online games, its easy to get caught up in campus life and forget about the outside world. While we may have more "real life" interaction than obsessive gamers, our interactions are generally among the same people. Everyone on campus shares a significant aspect of their current lives, their university, in common with everyone else on campus, much in the way that the gamers of Second Skin share a common and time-consuming hobby.
Nearly all of my time at UR is spent doing things meant to enhance my college experience and increase my opportunities in the future. So basically, if I'm not doing homework I'm at community service, if I'm not at community service I'm at work and if I'm not at work I'm doing homework. See the endless cycle? Any extra time I do have is spent hanging out with my friends here. It's a very detached existence. I don't keep up with the news while I'm here, I call my family only once every couple weeks and I've barely talked to my friends from home (who are just as busy as me) since I came back from winter break.
Obsessive gamers are the same way. The vast majority of their time and effort is put into their game of choice so that they can improve their standings. Their most significant social relationships or at least the ones to which they devote the most time are with other players. Things outside the game, which may have once held more significance, fall by the wayside.
The reality of these commonalities between UR students and obsessive gamers is a little scary to me. It makes me want to make extra effort to step outside "the bubble" from time to time. But like I said, its very easy to get caught up in it all and time starts to go by faster than I even realize. It seems to me that UR is my game of choice.
My immediate thought is the concept of the "bubble." Gamers, especially those portrayed in Second Skin, became almost complete recluses. They confined themselves entirely to the online gaming world and only left the screen long enough to perhaps go to work. The most significant part of their lives was the game and the relationships within the game.
I can't help but see a parallel to UR which is often even referred to as "the bubble." Much as in online games, its easy to get caught up in campus life and forget about the outside world. While we may have more "real life" interaction than obsessive gamers, our interactions are generally among the same people. Everyone on campus shares a significant aspect of their current lives, their university, in common with everyone else on campus, much in the way that the gamers of Second Skin share a common and time-consuming hobby.
Nearly all of my time at UR is spent doing things meant to enhance my college experience and increase my opportunities in the future. So basically, if I'm not doing homework I'm at community service, if I'm not at community service I'm at work and if I'm not at work I'm doing homework. See the endless cycle? Any extra time I do have is spent hanging out with my friends here. It's a very detached existence. I don't keep up with the news while I'm here, I call my family only once every couple weeks and I've barely talked to my friends from home (who are just as busy as me) since I came back from winter break.
Obsessive gamers are the same way. The vast majority of their time and effort is put into their game of choice so that they can improve their standings. Their most significant social relationships or at least the ones to which they devote the most time are with other players. Things outside the game, which may have once held more significance, fall by the wayside.
The reality of these commonalities between UR students and obsessive gamers is a little scary to me. It makes me want to make extra effort to step outside "the bubble" from time to time. But like I said, its very easy to get caught up in it all and time starts to go by faster than I even realize. It seems to me that UR is my game of choice.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Work, Play, Money and Meaning
Here at Richmond, I usually feel like I need to be doing something productive every second of every minute of every day. I start to feel anxious if I take a break for too long or get stuck for ideas. If I go to bed before 3:00AM or sleep in too late I feel guilty. If I'm not doing schoolwork it better be because I'm in class, at a meeting, at work or doing community service. There's never a moment when my work is finished so I feel the need to be perpetually working.
This is exactly the type of overworked culture that Julian Dibbell challenges throughout Play Money. He states that the Protestant Ethic helped create a material emphasis where efficiency is valued "as an end it itself" and we are encouraged "to acquire as much wealth as possible and enjoy it as little as possible" (61). In a sense, we should work ourselves to death because it's the only thing that is viewed as worthwhile.
Perhaps that type of value set is why I was immediately disturbed when Dibbell started talking about not only playing a computer game incessantly but also investing money in it as if it were actually a worthwhile pursuit. The idea seemed completely ridiculous and extremely self-indulgent. Indeed, Dibbell points out that we often view play as a distraction that wastes time that could be spent on more productive activities (58).
Dibbel, however, seems to believe that when money can be earned through play it blurs the lines between play and work. It turns play into a legitimate economic pursuit. This blurring of the lines is the idea behind a piece of advice I've heard countless times; figure out what you love to do and find a way to get paid to do it. As far as this idea extends to real world pursuits and creates happy citizens I think it's good advice. But a computer game? I'm still having trouble accepting that as a meaningful way to spend the majority of one's time.
I understand that the pursuit of online gaming has the possibility of becoming an economically lucrative undertaking. But I can't escape the idea that working should be about more than just making money. No matter how you spin it, an online game is essentially an individual activity. There may be some kind of virtual interaction but there are no concrete consequences other than those tied to money. For work to truly mean something and be worthy of my time, I want to know that it is not only enjoyable to me but also improves the lives of those around me. I need to be creating a positive effect on the world around me. Anything that is simply of benefit to me wouldn't be fulfilling enough.
In order to relieve the stress of our overworked culture I think it's necessary to value play and enjoyable activities more. When play and work can be combined into meaningful pursuits that is also something to be valued. However, spending the majority of one's time on an activity that is simple self-indulgence thinly veiled behind monetary pursuits is something that I can't take seriously.
This is exactly the type of overworked culture that Julian Dibbell challenges throughout Play Money. He states that the Protestant Ethic helped create a material emphasis where efficiency is valued "as an end it itself" and we are encouraged "to acquire as much wealth as possible and enjoy it as little as possible" (61). In a sense, we should work ourselves to death because it's the only thing that is viewed as worthwhile.
Perhaps that type of value set is why I was immediately disturbed when Dibbell started talking about not only playing a computer game incessantly but also investing money in it as if it were actually a worthwhile pursuit. The idea seemed completely ridiculous and extremely self-indulgent. Indeed, Dibbell points out that we often view play as a distraction that wastes time that could be spent on more productive activities (58).
Dibbel, however, seems to believe that when money can be earned through play it blurs the lines between play and work. It turns play into a legitimate economic pursuit. This blurring of the lines is the idea behind a piece of advice I've heard countless times; figure out what you love to do and find a way to get paid to do it. As far as this idea extends to real world pursuits and creates happy citizens I think it's good advice. But a computer game? I'm still having trouble accepting that as a meaningful way to spend the majority of one's time.
I understand that the pursuit of online gaming has the possibility of becoming an economically lucrative undertaking. But I can't escape the idea that working should be about more than just making money. No matter how you spin it, an online game is essentially an individual activity. There may be some kind of virtual interaction but there are no concrete consequences other than those tied to money. For work to truly mean something and be worthy of my time, I want to know that it is not only enjoyable to me but also improves the lives of those around me. I need to be creating a positive effect on the world around me. Anything that is simply of benefit to me wouldn't be fulfilling enough.
In order to relieve the stress of our overworked culture I think it's necessary to value play and enjoyable activities more. When play and work can be combined into meaningful pursuits that is also something to be valued. However, spending the majority of one's time on an activity that is simple self-indulgence thinly veiled behind monetary pursuits is something that I can't take seriously.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Project 2: Monopolize Our Minds
Gibson, in his 1984 novel Neuromancer, imagined an alternate hallucinatory world, an open "cyberspace," defended by the likes of the creative and talented people who helped build it (4). However, as Wu illustrates in his book The Master Switch, it can be extremely difficult for the innovators of a technology to keep control of it in the face of powerful corporations. In an economy largely run by major conglomerates, especially when it comes to information industries, it is questionable whether or not a future like the one Gibson presents is even possible.
It is true that new technologies are usually born out of the tireless work of creative individuals with little or no support behind them. Wu quickly points this out when he speaks of Alexander Bell and his assistant "toiling in their small attic laboratory," to create the telephone (18). It is an inspiring image; two dedicated men, working endlessly of their own accord, who managed to create a technology that would completely transform human communication. Of course, this innovation also gave rise to one of the biggest monopolies in information technology history: AT&T.
Once a technology is created it is natural for a few companies to seize and maintain control of it. They often do this at the cost of individual inventors who companies simultaneously rely on for innovation and exploit for their own money and power. Take, for instance, the development of FM radio. Essentially an improved version of AM radio, FM had better sound quality and didn't use as much power for its broadcast (Wu 128). But FM was too good. Because it posed a threat to the existing radio broadcasters and also could have eliminated the need for AT&T's long distance lines, the technology was buried for several decades until RCA was able to establish adequate control and regulation over the technology (132).
Companies feel threatened by disruptive technologies which they view as at odds with their own interests. Because such innovation is usually the work of one or two people it is not difficult for companies to take control, through the use of money, the law or even illegal activity, to spin the odds in their favor. When RCA placed FM technology in their televisions, they did so without the permission of the inventor assuming that a large company with extensive resources would have no problem winning a lawsuit against an individual inventor (134).
This phenomenon is one reason why Gibson's future is so unlikely. Companies will generally try to gain control of influential technologies in order to enhance their own power and influence. It is unlikely that the internet, the most pervasive and widespread information technology today, will prove an exception to this rule. If anything, the fight to control the internet will probably be the strongest and most contested one yet. It is nearly impossible for individuals to maintain any defense when a corporation decides that they want to control something. The economic assets and resources of a large corporation are simply too great for most any individual to successfully fight.
Even beyond the desire for power and wealth, companies and possibly even the government may try to gain increased control over the internet for control over content. Because the internet reaches so many people the stakes are very high. Always seeking to shape public opinion in their favor, companies with content control on the internet would hold an unprecedented amount of power. However, a completely open internet leaves a lot of room for dissenting ideas that may be just as threatening to companies as disruptive technologies tend to be.
Control of ideas is grounded in the history of information industries as well. In the 1920s, a strict production code was placed over Hollywood filmmakers in the name of "decency and Christian morality" (Wu 118). The goal behind the code was to support the status quo without allowing any alternative ideas or questionable behaviors to be presented to the public (115). Movies, shown all over the country, were being regulated to severely limit the content that the American public was able to see. Hollywood became a medium to perpetuate the ideas of the few who had created the code rather than a mode free and creative expression. This is powerful because the creators of the code had the opportunity to attempt to instill their values into the American public at large without any competition.
Throughout his novel, Gibson presents exactly the type of free dissent that threatens large entities. As Case and Molly weave their way through cyberspace they gain access to information that allows them to break down the barriers created by the extremely powerful Tessier-Ashpool clan. This is what companies will seek to prevent by gaining control over content. Free reign on the internet is threatening to the businesses whose practices are not always the most noble. When people have the ability to communicate and access information without regulation it puts these companies at serious risk. Companies will use the vast resources at their disposal to make sure that this doesn't happen by gaining as much control as they can over the content that individuals can access.
Gibson's future is possibly most unlikely because it limits internet access to a few talented professionals. Cyberspace as Gibson imagined it is a highly immersive technology in which one's consciousness actually enters into the network; a "consensual hallucination" as Gibson puts it (6). Such an experience requires more of a commitment by the user. Gibson's internet is not the casual communications interface that we know today but rather a more specialized technology. Navigating Gibson's cyberspace takes more skill and is therefore more naturally limiting. Indeed, there is no mention of general public use of cyberspace in Gibson's novel. The entire story centers on Case, Molly and a handful of experienced others. Given the context that Gibson provides, it is difficult to imagine casual, everyday use of his version of cyberspace.
In order to sustain itself, an information technology needs to appeal to a widespread set of users who are confident in their abilities to use the technology to their convenience. Gibson provides no evidence that his vision of cyberspace allows for this. Rather, it seems that Case and Molly use cyberspace in increasingly complex ways. Without a widespread set of users it is unlikely that Gibon's matrix would remain a force for long in the technological world because more useful and user-friendly technologies would replace it. In Gibson's world, individuals are able to maintain control over cyberspace but this is probably due to the fact that it would not be highly appealing to large companies. If there is not a widespread set of users then the technology is not lucrative for the company and it does not allow them to shape public opinion in their favor.
However, the interface that we have today reaches across the globe to a widespread set of users everyday. This makes it appealing to companies looking to expand their influence and build capital. Wu shows that corporate control of information industries does not generally bother users so long as it does not negatively affect individual experience. It could even sometimes be useful in providing better service to customers (161). The promise of extensive wealth and power mixed with the ambivalence of the public creates an ideal climate for large companies to exercise control.
It could be argued that the internet is fundamentally different than any other previous information technology industries and therefore not subject to the same fate. The internet was created with the intention that it would be a decentralized, open network (Wu 170). This means that it will have ardent defenders trying to make sure it remains that way. However, because the scope and influence of the internet is so great it will also be highly appealing to corporations hungry for market control. Unless corporations also adopt an ideology that values an open network the future of internet control will continue to be a heated debate. But if a few large corporations decide, in the perfect moment, to seize control over the network there will be little that any individual can do to stop them.
Sources:
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Penguin, 1984. Print.
Wu, Tim. The Master Switch. New York: Random, 2010. Print.
It is true that new technologies are usually born out of the tireless work of creative individuals with little or no support behind them. Wu quickly points this out when he speaks of Alexander Bell and his assistant "toiling in their small attic laboratory," to create the telephone (18). It is an inspiring image; two dedicated men, working endlessly of their own accord, who managed to create a technology that would completely transform human communication. Of course, this innovation also gave rise to one of the biggest monopolies in information technology history: AT&T.
Once a technology is created it is natural for a few companies to seize and maintain control of it. They often do this at the cost of individual inventors who companies simultaneously rely on for innovation and exploit for their own money and power. Take, for instance, the development of FM radio. Essentially an improved version of AM radio, FM had better sound quality and didn't use as much power for its broadcast (Wu 128). But FM was too good. Because it posed a threat to the existing radio broadcasters and also could have eliminated the need for AT&T's long distance lines, the technology was buried for several decades until RCA was able to establish adequate control and regulation over the technology (132).
Companies feel threatened by disruptive technologies which they view as at odds with their own interests. Because such innovation is usually the work of one or two people it is not difficult for companies to take control, through the use of money, the law or even illegal activity, to spin the odds in their favor. When RCA placed FM technology in their televisions, they did so without the permission of the inventor assuming that a large company with extensive resources would have no problem winning a lawsuit against an individual inventor (134).
This phenomenon is one reason why Gibson's future is so unlikely. Companies will generally try to gain control of influential technologies in order to enhance their own power and influence. It is unlikely that the internet, the most pervasive and widespread information technology today, will prove an exception to this rule. If anything, the fight to control the internet will probably be the strongest and most contested one yet. It is nearly impossible for individuals to maintain any defense when a corporation decides that they want to control something. The economic assets and resources of a large corporation are simply too great for most any individual to successfully fight.
Even beyond the desire for power and wealth, companies and possibly even the government may try to gain increased control over the internet for control over content. Because the internet reaches so many people the stakes are very high. Always seeking to shape public opinion in their favor, companies with content control on the internet would hold an unprecedented amount of power. However, a completely open internet leaves a lot of room for dissenting ideas that may be just as threatening to companies as disruptive technologies tend to be.
Control of ideas is grounded in the history of information industries as well. In the 1920s, a strict production code was placed over Hollywood filmmakers in the name of "decency and Christian morality" (Wu 118). The goal behind the code was to support the status quo without allowing any alternative ideas or questionable behaviors to be presented to the public (115). Movies, shown all over the country, were being regulated to severely limit the content that the American public was able to see. Hollywood became a medium to perpetuate the ideas of the few who had created the code rather than a mode free and creative expression. This is powerful because the creators of the code had the opportunity to attempt to instill their values into the American public at large without any competition.
Throughout his novel, Gibson presents exactly the type of free dissent that threatens large entities. As Case and Molly weave their way through cyberspace they gain access to information that allows them to break down the barriers created by the extremely powerful Tessier-Ashpool clan. This is what companies will seek to prevent by gaining control over content. Free reign on the internet is threatening to the businesses whose practices are not always the most noble. When people have the ability to communicate and access information without regulation it puts these companies at serious risk. Companies will use the vast resources at their disposal to make sure that this doesn't happen by gaining as much control as they can over the content that individuals can access.
Gibson's future is possibly most unlikely because it limits internet access to a few talented professionals. Cyberspace as Gibson imagined it is a highly immersive technology in which one's consciousness actually enters into the network; a "consensual hallucination" as Gibson puts it (6). Such an experience requires more of a commitment by the user. Gibson's internet is not the casual communications interface that we know today but rather a more specialized technology. Navigating Gibson's cyberspace takes more skill and is therefore more naturally limiting. Indeed, there is no mention of general public use of cyberspace in Gibson's novel. The entire story centers on Case, Molly and a handful of experienced others. Given the context that Gibson provides, it is difficult to imagine casual, everyday use of his version of cyberspace.
In order to sustain itself, an information technology needs to appeal to a widespread set of users who are confident in their abilities to use the technology to their convenience. Gibson provides no evidence that his vision of cyberspace allows for this. Rather, it seems that Case and Molly use cyberspace in increasingly complex ways. Without a widespread set of users it is unlikely that Gibon's matrix would remain a force for long in the technological world because more useful and user-friendly technologies would replace it. In Gibson's world, individuals are able to maintain control over cyberspace but this is probably due to the fact that it would not be highly appealing to large companies. If there is not a widespread set of users then the technology is not lucrative for the company and it does not allow them to shape public opinion in their favor.
However, the interface that we have today reaches across the globe to a widespread set of users everyday. This makes it appealing to companies looking to expand their influence and build capital. Wu shows that corporate control of information industries does not generally bother users so long as it does not negatively affect individual experience. It could even sometimes be useful in providing better service to customers (161). The promise of extensive wealth and power mixed with the ambivalence of the public creates an ideal climate for large companies to exercise control.
It could be argued that the internet is fundamentally different than any other previous information technology industries and therefore not subject to the same fate. The internet was created with the intention that it would be a decentralized, open network (Wu 170). This means that it will have ardent defenders trying to make sure it remains that way. However, because the scope and influence of the internet is so great it will also be highly appealing to corporations hungry for market control. Unless corporations also adopt an ideology that values an open network the future of internet control will continue to be a heated debate. But if a few large corporations decide, in the perfect moment, to seize control over the network there will be little that any individual can do to stop them.
Sources:
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Penguin, 1984. Print.
Wu, Tim. The Master Switch. New York: Random, 2010. Print.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Facebook: Not just a Procrastination Technique
Facebook. Cell phones. Texting. Twitter. Our modern world is teeming with different modes of electronic communication. Most people, like myself, probably use a multitude of these methods every day without thinking about it. But how dependent are we on them? How much time do we spend using them everyday?
In an attempt to get some idea, I looked at my own Facebook usage for a day. There's no doubt that Facebook is the website that I spend the most time on and the easiest way for me to communicate with others. Now that I'm in college, far away from my friends and family and with terrible cell service on campus, facebook has become the most convenient way to communicate with people back home and at other schools.
The other day, several of my friends from home wrote on my Facebook wall to ask where the heck I have been. This semester has been super busy so far and I haven't talked to them since I left home last month. I was able to quickly reply to them in a comment that I was sorry and we should talk soon. With our busy lives and mismatched schedules Facebook allows us to leave messages for each other which we can reply to at our own convenience.
Facebook also allows for less direct communication. A simple status update goes out to a community at large. Though it's not the most direct or ideal way to communicate it's better than nothing. Facebook allows me to feel like I know what's going on in the lives of my friends and family even though I may only be able to call them every few weeks.
That's what I find myself doing most of the time on Facebook; scrolling through my news feed for status updates, news stories from the sources I "like" and campus events. I would say that the majority of the time I spend on Facebook is not to communicate with any specific people but rather just to see what's going on. There's always something new posted so Facebook is where I turn when I'm bored or need a break from homework. Every time I open up Firefox, I immediately go to Facebook as if on auto pilot. Even when I get online to do something totally different, Facebook is inevitably where I end up. The amount of time I spend on it varies depending on what I'm doing, my schedule for the day and my workload but there isn't a day I go without Facebook. Now that I have it I can't imagine my life without it.
To be sure, that type of use of social networking is more passive and casual than direct and communicative. I think that's why the internet has developed as it has rather than becoming a "consensual hallucination" like in Gibson's matrix. As it is, I can get online anytime I want for any amount of time I want whether it be a few seconds before I run to class or for 30 minutes when I don't want to do my homework. In a matrix like Gibson's this type of casual use would not be possible. The very notion of having to "jack in" requires thought, time and equipment that aren't always available. Everyday use of the internet would likely be drastically altered if this type of planning were necessary every time we wanted to use it. If internet use were that formal I think it would be more accessible to professionals in the workplace than to daily home lives. To enter the matrix I would have to commit to it more than I have to when I jump online for a minute to check what my friends are up to.
The other day, several of my friends from home wrote on my Facebook wall to ask where the heck I have been. This semester has been super busy so far and I haven't talked to them since I left home last month. I was able to quickly reply to them in a comment that I was sorry and we should talk soon. With our busy lives and mismatched schedules Facebook allows us to leave messages for each other which we can reply to at our own convenience.
Facebook also allows for less direct communication. A simple status update goes out to a community at large. Though it's not the most direct or ideal way to communicate it's better than nothing. Facebook allows me to feel like I know what's going on in the lives of my friends and family even though I may only be able to call them every few weeks.
That's what I find myself doing most of the time on Facebook; scrolling through my news feed for status updates, news stories from the sources I "like" and campus events. I would say that the majority of the time I spend on Facebook is not to communicate with any specific people but rather just to see what's going on. There's always something new posted so Facebook is where I turn when I'm bored or need a break from homework. Every time I open up Firefox, I immediately go to Facebook as if on auto pilot. Even when I get online to do something totally different, Facebook is inevitably where I end up. The amount of time I spend on it varies depending on what I'm doing, my schedule for the day and my workload but there isn't a day I go without Facebook. Now that I have it I can't imagine my life without it.
To be sure, that type of use of social networking is more passive and casual than direct and communicative. I think that's why the internet has developed as it has rather than becoming a "consensual hallucination" like in Gibson's matrix. As it is, I can get online anytime I want for any amount of time I want whether it be a few seconds before I run to class or for 30 minutes when I don't want to do my homework. In a matrix like Gibson's this type of casual use would not be possible. The very notion of having to "jack in" requires thought, time and equipment that aren't always available. Everyday use of the internet would likely be drastically altered if this type of planning were necessary every time we wanted to use it. If internet use were that formal I think it would be more accessible to professionals in the workplace than to daily home lives. To enter the matrix I would have to commit to it more than I have to when I jump online for a minute to check what my friends are up to.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Human, Machine or Both?
"'Numb,' he said. He'd been numb a long time, years. All his nights down Ninsei, his nights with Linda, numb in bed and numb at the cold sweating center of every drug deal. But now he'd found this warm thing, this chip of murder" (Gibson 152).
This is a possible danger of too much advanced technology. The chance of becoming completely numb, devoid of the emotions that make us human. When our machines take over too many facets of our lives or when, as Gibson imagines in his novel Neuromancer, we merge with our machines we may lose the qualities that make us uniquely human. We risk becoming entirely dependent on our technology to the point that our lives lose meaning without it.
The technological future as Gibson imagined it has not yet come to fruition. Cyberspace is not a physical place that we can actually enter. We don't all insert different chips in our heads depending what task we are completing. However, the technology we do have may have a similar effect on us as the technology in Neuromancer has on the novel's characters.
With things like facebook, twitter, endless news outlets, laptops, smartphones and new gadgets being introduced on the market all the time, it's easy for us to get lost in our technological world. Ever notice how time seems to pass quicker when you're surfing the net? It seems to me that as our technology advances we are becoming more engaged with our machines than with each other. The human component of our lives becomes secondary and in Gibson's world it could be almost completely lost. It's as if the world just turns cold.
At one point in the novel, Case actually begins to feel something. It is stated that, "he sat on the bed for a long time, savoring the new thing, the treasure. Rage" (145). This moment of emotion is long overdue. It is not only creates a sense of wonder for Case at this "warm thing" but as a reader I felt a sense of relief. Case finally feels something proving that he must have some human capacity left in him. Without that emotion, Case is little more than a machine disguised as a human. He seems empty.
Gibson meant his book to be a warning of the bleak future that technology has the potential to create. He should be taken seriously. As vital and convenient as our technology is in our everyday lives, we should take a step back every once in awhile. Detach ourselves from our machines and reclaim our humanity.
This is a possible danger of too much advanced technology. The chance of becoming completely numb, devoid of the emotions that make us human. When our machines take over too many facets of our lives or when, as Gibson imagines in his novel Neuromancer, we merge with our machines we may lose the qualities that make us uniquely human. We risk becoming entirely dependent on our technology to the point that our lives lose meaning without it.
The technological future as Gibson imagined it has not yet come to fruition. Cyberspace is not a physical place that we can actually enter. We don't all insert different chips in our heads depending what task we are completing. However, the technology we do have may have a similar effect on us as the technology in Neuromancer has on the novel's characters.
With things like facebook, twitter, endless news outlets, laptops, smartphones and new gadgets being introduced on the market all the time, it's easy for us to get lost in our technological world. Ever notice how time seems to pass quicker when you're surfing the net? It seems to me that as our technology advances we are becoming more engaged with our machines than with each other. The human component of our lives becomes secondary and in Gibson's world it could be almost completely lost. It's as if the world just turns cold.
At one point in the novel, Case actually begins to feel something. It is stated that, "he sat on the bed for a long time, savoring the new thing, the treasure. Rage" (145). This moment of emotion is long overdue. It is not only creates a sense of wonder for Case at this "warm thing" but as a reader I felt a sense of relief. Case finally feels something proving that he must have some human capacity left in him. Without that emotion, Case is little more than a machine disguised as a human. He seems empty.
Gibson meant his book to be a warning of the bleak future that technology has the potential to create. He should be taken seriously. As vital and convenient as our technology is in our everyday lives, we should take a step back every once in awhile. Detach ourselves from our machines and reclaim our humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)