Today we live in a word where data of all kinds is shared, distributed, and aggregated at an alarming rate and in an innumerable number of ways.
Accordingly to Wesley Dodson, the ‘Information Age’ we have been living in–characterized by a digital revolution and computerization of information—is now being usurped by a new age, which he refers to as the ‘Systems Age.’ In this ‘Systems Age,’ we are “sensing, collecting, and manipulating data in near real-time with little to no human supervision” (Dodson). As a result, this means that the entire concept of publishing has transformed as well. Anyone with a smartphone, iPad, laptop, or any other way of accessing the Internet has the power to publish, or distribute, information. But is this move from a broadcast media holding a monopoly on information, to a networked media distributing and sharing data a good thing or a bad thing? Let’s look at two different viewpoints:
In his book “Making is Connecting,” author David Gauntlett argues that with the advent of Web 2.0 and explosion in social media platforms, people have been given the wonderful ability to create, share, and connect more so than ever before. He argues that in order for society to flourish, “it is absolutely essential…that people get the opportunities to make and share things, rather than be mere consumers of things.” Basically, he endorses people being “creative participants within their own lives” (Gauntlett). This is why he so blatantly supports online, new-media platforms, because they allow the publics to be more open and connected, which in turn enhances the social. Essentially, in his eyes, if someone shares a tweet or status update, they are generating a connection with the world around them; this is because by sharing their thoughts or ideas, they engage with others and thus foster relationships. Making these connections is what we live for, which would easily explain the incredible popularity of social media platforms today. Rather than accept what is made or told by media professionals (which used to be the case before Web 2.0), now people can create and distribute their own things, ideas, etc. in the world; as a result, they socialize and engage with the world, because “making” is at the root of “connecting!” Gauntlett encourages sharing because he believes that it is integral to developing relationships and is crucial to the function of a vibrant, healthy society. Therefore, Gauntlett sees the countless online platforms that have emerged in a positive light, as they offer us limitless ways to share and connect, through distribution and aggregation. Even hacking, which is a practice frequently looked down upon, ultimately “create[s] the possibility of new things entering the world. Not always great things, or even good things, but new things,” which Gauntlett would likely approve of (Wark [004]).
On the opposite end of the spectrum, sociologist and researcher Danah Boyd finds that this move from a broadcast media to a networked media only encourages us to connect with like-minded people, and that if we aren’t careful, we will end up consuming content that is narrow-minded and ultimately not valuable for ourselves or for society. She thinks that these online platforms encourage us to live in our own worlds–where we engage with people who share our values and interests—effectively reducing our ability to see beyond our little ‘bubbles’ of aggregation. As mentioned in lecture, this is because we are ‘cyber’ hunters and gatherers of information, because we collect what is important or relevant to us, while discarding and ignoring the rest. Boyd additionally speaks of the idea that we are “living in the stream: adding to it, consuming it, directing it” (Guillaud). This ‘stream’ she speaks of broadly refers to the aggregation of distributed information. In this new ‘Systems Age,’ nearly anyone has the ability to influence this stream and change the direction in which information flows. While Gauntlett might argue that a site like Facebook, for example, is advantageous because it allows us to connect with long-lost friends, share witty thoughts in our status updates, share pictures from our last vacation, and ultimately bring us closer to people, Boyd would claim that this is not the case. Instead, she says, “the information ecology we live in today has twisted this whole thing upside down…sociologists call [it] parasocial relations: on Facebook, you can turn your friends into celebrities, without actually gaining the benefits of social intimacy and bonding” (Guillaud).
Social media has become so prominent in our lives that it has taken a dominant role even in the arena of employment. In fact, entire jobs and internships are often dedicated to and created around one’s ability to use various online platforms, gather followers, etc. However, as mentioned in the article “Know Your Product: Online Branding and the Evacuation of Friendship,” genuine online identities and online friendships are put at risk as a result of social media’s interference in the workplace. People are often forced to ‘like’ certain things, make certain status updates, or add certain people as friends for work purposes. People are also compelled to monitor their online behavior, because the extreme visibility of sites like Twitter and Facebook make it so that potential employers (and even current ones) can see your profile and posts. Essentially, though it is often wonderful how social media and work can overlap, unfortunately there is a “divide emerging between those who [can] afford to have their Tweets remain whimsical banalities and those for whom the platform [is] becoming just another part of the job” (Gregg 117). This article made me think about the crucial question, how distributed or aggregated am I? Particularly because I am graduating Uni in one year, I need to start thinking about my future employment. I am frequently reminded that if an employer sees photos of you drinking on Facebook or making inappropriate Tweets about a wild night out, your chances of being hired will be hurt. Therefore, I am making an effort to censor my profile and make private as much of my content as possible. This week’s readings essentially wised me up to the fact that every time I distribute information, it becomes aggregated and can be easily searched on Google by a future employer; as a consequence, this might harm my chances of landing a job.
secret word: platforms
Resources:
Gauntlett, David. “Making is Connecting: the 4-minute presentation (2012).” Online video clip. YouTube. 10 Jan 2012. Web. 07 november 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA-IYHM7u6A&hd=1&noredirect=1>.
Guillaud, Hubert. “What Is Implied by Living in a World of Flow.” Truthout. N.p., 6 Jan. 2010. Web. 07 november 2014. <http://archive.truthout.org/what-implied-living-a-world-flow56203>.
Dodson, Wesley. “Dawn of The Systems Age.” ScienceBlogs. N.p., 28 Dec. 2009. Web. 07 november 2014. <http://scienceblogs.com/seed/2009/12/28/dawn-of-the-systems-age/>.
Gregg, Melissa (2011) ‘Know your product: Online Branding and the Evacuation of Friendship’ in Work’s Intimacy Cambridge: Polity: 102-118
Wark, McKenzie (2004) ‘Abstraction’ in A Hacker Manifesto Cambrdige, MA; Harvard University Press: paragraphs 001-023 (8 pages)
Accordingly to Wesley Dodson, the ‘Information Age’ we have been living in–characterized by a digital revolution and computerization of information—is now being usurped by a new age, which he refers to as the ‘Systems Age.’ In this ‘Systems Age,’ we are “sensing, collecting, and manipulating data in near real-time with little to no human supervision” (Dodson). As a result, this means that the entire concept of publishing has transformed as well. Anyone with a smartphone, iPad, laptop, or any other way of accessing the Internet has the power to publish, or distribute, information. But is this move from a broadcast media holding a monopoly on information, to a networked media distributing and sharing data a good thing or a bad thing? Let’s look at two different viewpoints:
In his book “Making is Connecting,” author David Gauntlett argues that with the advent of Web 2.0 and explosion in social media platforms, people have been given the wonderful ability to create, share, and connect more so than ever before. He argues that in order for society to flourish, “it is absolutely essential…that people get the opportunities to make and share things, rather than be mere consumers of things.” Basically, he endorses people being “creative participants within their own lives” (Gauntlett). This is why he so blatantly supports online, new-media platforms, because they allow the publics to be more open and connected, which in turn enhances the social. Essentially, in his eyes, if someone shares a tweet or status update, they are generating a connection with the world around them; this is because by sharing their thoughts or ideas, they engage with others and thus foster relationships. Making these connections is what we live for, which would easily explain the incredible popularity of social media platforms today. Rather than accept what is made or told by media professionals (which used to be the case before Web 2.0), now people can create and distribute their own things, ideas, etc. in the world; as a result, they socialize and engage with the world, because “making” is at the root of “connecting!” Gauntlett encourages sharing because he believes that it is integral to developing relationships and is crucial to the function of a vibrant, healthy society. Therefore, Gauntlett sees the countless online platforms that have emerged in a positive light, as they offer us limitless ways to share and connect, through distribution and aggregation. Even hacking, which is a practice frequently looked down upon, ultimately “create[s] the possibility of new things entering the world. Not always great things, or even good things, but new things,” which Gauntlett would likely approve of (Wark [004]).
On the opposite end of the spectrum, sociologist and researcher Danah Boyd finds that this move from a broadcast media to a networked media only encourages us to connect with like-minded people, and that if we aren’t careful, we will end up consuming content that is narrow-minded and ultimately not valuable for ourselves or for society. She thinks that these online platforms encourage us to live in our own worlds–where we engage with people who share our values and interests—effectively reducing our ability to see beyond our little ‘bubbles’ of aggregation. As mentioned in lecture, this is because we are ‘cyber’ hunters and gatherers of information, because we collect what is important or relevant to us, while discarding and ignoring the rest. Boyd additionally speaks of the idea that we are “living in the stream: adding to it, consuming it, directing it” (Guillaud). This ‘stream’ she speaks of broadly refers to the aggregation of distributed information. In this new ‘Systems Age,’ nearly anyone has the ability to influence this stream and change the direction in which information flows. While Gauntlett might argue that a site like Facebook, for example, is advantageous because it allows us to connect with long-lost friends, share witty thoughts in our status updates, share pictures from our last vacation, and ultimately bring us closer to people, Boyd would claim that this is not the case. Instead, she says, “the information ecology we live in today has twisted this whole thing upside down…sociologists call [it] parasocial relations: on Facebook, you can turn your friends into celebrities, without actually gaining the benefits of social intimacy and bonding” (Guillaud).
Social media has become so prominent in our lives that it has taken a dominant role even in the arena of employment. In fact, entire jobs and internships are often dedicated to and created around one’s ability to use various online platforms, gather followers, etc. However, as mentioned in the article “Know Your Product: Online Branding and the Evacuation of Friendship,” genuine online identities and online friendships are put at risk as a result of social media’s interference in the workplace. People are often forced to ‘like’ certain things, make certain status updates, or add certain people as friends for work purposes. People are also compelled to monitor their online behavior, because the extreme visibility of sites like Twitter and Facebook make it so that potential employers (and even current ones) can see your profile and posts. Essentially, though it is often wonderful how social media and work can overlap, unfortunately there is a “divide emerging between those who [can] afford to have their Tweets remain whimsical banalities and those for whom the platform [is] becoming just another part of the job” (Gregg 117). This article made me think about the crucial question, how distributed or aggregated am I? Particularly because I am graduating Uni in one year, I need to start thinking about my future employment. I am frequently reminded that if an employer sees photos of you drinking on Facebook or making inappropriate Tweets about a wild night out, your chances of being hired will be hurt. Therefore, I am making an effort to censor my profile and make private as much of my content as possible. This week’s readings essentially wised me up to the fact that every time I distribute information, it becomes aggregated and can be easily searched on Google by a future employer; as a consequence, this might harm my chances of landing a job.
secret word: platforms
Resources:
Gauntlett, David. “Making is Connecting: the 4-minute presentation (2012).” Online video clip. YouTube. 10 Jan 2012. Web. 07 november 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA-IYHM7u6A&hd=1&noredirect=1>.
Guillaud, Hubert. “What Is Implied by Living in a World of Flow.” Truthout. N.p., 6 Jan. 2010. Web. 07 november 2014. <http://archive.truthout.org/what-implied-living-a-world-flow56203>.
Dodson, Wesley. “Dawn of The Systems Age.” ScienceBlogs. N.p., 28 Dec. 2009. Web. 07 november 2014. <http://scienceblogs.com/seed/2009/12/28/dawn-of-the-systems-age/>.
Gregg, Melissa (2011) ‘Know your product: Online Branding and the Evacuation of Friendship’ in Work’s Intimacy Cambridge: Polity: 102-118
Wark, McKenzie (2004) ‘Abstraction’ in A Hacker Manifesto Cambrdige, MA; Harvard University Press: paragraphs 001-023 (8 pages)
