This week's readings were not as celebratory of the new online world as the previous weeks. We learn not only of the downsides and dangerous assumptions of this interconnectivity but also of its implications in business and government. The overriding themes of the week's readings were choice, capitalism and collaboration. The readings were:
In the interest of transparency, I do not have any affection toward Cass Sunstein. This is not because of the current article (published in 2001) but because of an article he wrote in 2008. In the 2008 article, he proposed that government agents infiltrate organizations that "conspire" to undermine the government's good works. The agents would infiltrate "chat rooms, online social networks, etc. while touting the pro-government message. The goal would be to undermine the activists' works while restoring faith in the government (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/chrisfield/2012/09/05/dangerous_liberal_4_cass_sunstein). It is with this eye that I analyze the 2001 article. Inadvertent exposure The 2001 article rests on the foundational question: How will the internet, the new forms of television and the explosion of communications options alter the capacity of citizens to govern themselves? He rests his arguments on "the growing power of consumers to filter what they see." He presumes that audiences will continually and only seek those sources of information with which they agree and that audiences should be inadvertently exposed to materials they would not have chosen. First, there is a difference between exposure and availability. In a democracy, the information may be available. The citizens should have a choice if they want to be exposed to it. The governing powers of the democracy would ensure the citizens had a choice. Common experiences Sunstein states citizens should share common experiences which, in a heterogeneous society, common experiences lead to the solution of social problems. He assumes citizens have the same interpretation of the shared experiences. His viewpoint does not allow the individual to interpret an event through his/her personal experiences and viewpoint. There is a reason eyewitness testimony is considered unreliable. Senseless nostalgia The nostalgia he refers to as unproductive is the same nostalgia that generated the general intermediary/street corner/commons news sources. In the days of fewer media choices and outlets, there were general magazines that covered many subjects (e.g., National Geographic, Time, Newsweek). However, readers still had the choice to engage in those sources. Sunstein belies the days in which the environment he desires to create actually existed. The underlying theme through Sunstein's article is the lack of choice. There is no choice to select desired news sources or in the interpretation of one's experiences. The individual will not willingly choose to research viewpoints outside his/her own beliefs and, later in the article, Sunstein states "it is because choices that seem perfectly reasonable in isolation may, when taken together, badly disserve democratic goals." In short, the individual should not have choices because it may be for the common good. I suspect Sustein will define the common good. As a side note, Sunstein was appointed as President Obama's Regulatory Czar in 2008. The Regulatory Czar oversees the effectiveness of federal regulations. Capitalism At the base of McChesney’s article is that both celebrants and skeptics of the internet ignore capitalism as the driving force behind the actions of companies such as Google and Facebook. The internet operates under the guise of democratization; however, the true driver of the internet is profit while democracy/public policy secondary. In my opinion, the internet is the new playground for monopolies. The government often intervenes when companies appear to have a corner on the industry. For example, Southern Bell (telephone company) was order to split into separate entities in the 1980s. The resulting entities were Bell South, Southern Bell and AT&T among many others. This allowed entities such as MCI (long distance carrier) to enter the market. I presume the government understood, in essence, telephone technology and could foreseeably regulate it. However, since the spread of the internet, technology has developed rapidly and continues apace; it is difficult for the government to keep up. What has occurred is the government goes to entities such as Google, Facebook and Apple to learn how to coordinate their efforts. The government gets information while the large internet and technology agencies can maintain their respective monopolies veritably untouched by government regulators. It is in the government’s interests to “turn a blind eye” to the monopolistic activities of the major internet companies. As of now, the internet remains a playground for monopolies. Another example of the government’s inability to keep up with technology is Uber. The logic behind Uber is a rider schedules a ride with a driver registered with the Uber company and application. The driver uses his/her own car and the rider gets to the destination. The payment is made via the Uber app. The cost for the Uber rider is less than that of a taxi. The taxi industry in Georgia has gone to the state legislature to request that Uber be regulated out of business. In this case, the taxi industry is asking the government to remove or severely hinder another’s activity in the marketplace. Collaboration The mass collaboration and collective knowledge celebrated in previous weeks are not as mass and collective as first thought. According to Van Dijck & Nieborg, “of those people who use the internet regularly, 52% are inactives, another 33% are ‘passive spectators’ and only 13% are actual creators.” The democratization of the internet is not as democratized as first believed. The tools are available but not widely used. Just as the television did not displace the radio, the internet will not displace the television. As Jenkins mentioned in his book Convergence Culture, previous communications technologies exist side-by-side with new technologies.
With the majority of internet users merely watching or inactive, this begs the question: Are companies receiving a true impression of their customers? If only 13% of the internet users are actual creators then the companies only hear from a fraction of their customer base. This fraction influences online market buys, brand messaging and brand perception in the online community. Collaboration is not truly everything if a small minority are the only collaborators. The week’s readings centered on the democratization of technology. Some of the arguments were true such as: 1) we have become consumers and producers of media; 2) mass collaboration allows for a more participatory culture and enhances human development and 3) technology has affected how we view our political systems, economies, cultures, etc. The democratization of the internet has created these scenarios. Although the internet is readily available to many, barriers still exist regarding access and full democratization. With this, the authors of the week’s readings look upon democratization as a positive but do not fully explore the implications of ownership, collective intelligence, participation and organizational structures. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine
A disturbing argument is that intellectual property or proprietary information should be shared for the common good. Corporations and organizations thrive on their expertise in a product or service. There were likely many episodes of trial and error to arrive at the precise formula of ingredients or actions that set the organization apart from its competitors. Companies invest time and money and should, rightfully, benefit from the investment. Additionally, the common good for one entity is disastrous for another. In short, to suggest a company willingly acquiesce proprietary information or intellectual property is woefully naïve. The concept of ownership is threatened when it is suggested that intellectual property be shared without regard to the impact to the company for the ambiguous “common good.” When Google publishes its search algorithms, I may change my mind. You don’t know what you don’t know Intellectual property would be relinquished to contribute to the collective intelligence. The authors argue for collective intelligence which is the contribution to the general body of knowledge from many; it is the Wikipedia model of sharing knowledge. If many agree on information, it is assumed that information is accurate. However, that is a dangerous assumption. Because a group agrees on a statement, it does not automatically make the statement accurate or credible. Consensus does not equate to truth or credibility. Benkler mentions the Babel objection which states “when everyone can speak, no one can be heard, and we devolve either to a cacophony or to the reemergence of money as the distinguishing factor between statements that are heard and those that wallow in obscurity.” The consensus is the voices of those who have the money, power and/or influence to be heard while truth, credibility and other viewpoints are drowned out or do not receive an adequate public hearing. The quality of the collective intelligence is only as good as the allowance of the dissenting voices to be heard. As a side note, there is an immeasurable amount of data available via the internet. Data is simply facts and figures. When the story is told about the facts and figures, the data becomes information. The internet is certainly rich with data and some information. But how much is true knowledge? In my opinion, knowledge does not occur until the information is applied. Collective intelligence is a side effect of the internet’s capabilities but how much knowledge truly exists? Who is to say true knowledge is not in the small chorus of dissenting or other points of view? Everyone’s invited The internet has certainly allowed many people the opportunities to participate in a community. The community can range from quilt makers to school groups to political parties. Participation can occur in the real world (off-line), via the internet (online) or both. Individuals can serve as a member on the board of directors which requires more engagement and time or the individual can simply visit the community and not engage or communicate with anyone. Everyone is invited to the virtual community which may only have 5% true engagement while 95% are on the sidelines. The deeper question is: does participation equate to influence? The community may have the numbers but only a small percentage of the community is active and, therefore, influential. The small percentage of the influential must also overcome the moneyed interests. For example, activists circulate petitions for individuals to support or oppose the Keystone pipeline. The average working American may add his name to the petition along with those of his neighbors, co-workers and friends. The activists pass this petition on to the congressman. However, the congressman may have large money donors that have the access to speak with him directly. The direct conversation from a larger money donor may have more influence on the congressman than the petition from thousands of his constituents. No one is in charge Jenkins mentioned the concept of adhocracy. An adhocracy is “an organization characterized by a lack of a hierarchy. Tapscott and Williams refer to it, in a sense, as peering. In short, a hierarchy does not exist. As tasks change so do the leadership roles. The idea of an adhocracy sounds intriguing but practically, I question if it can work on a large scale (e.g., organization-wide). Work groups and project-based work groups, regardless of geography, may be able to transfer leadership decisions based on group members’ core competencies. However, on a larger scale, someone must have the authority and be willing to take responsibility for longer-term, higher impact decisions. Hierarchies will continue to exist to a certain extent. The idea of an adhocracy is appealing but with limited applicability. Mix/match freedoms? Briefly, one statement that Benkler made troubles me. The statement is as follows: “Different liberal polities can pursue different mixtures of respect for different liberal commitments.” In other words, governments (either local, regional or national) decide which freedoms or constraints they would like to allow or limit. The section mentioned Singapore as an example of a trade-off between freedom and welfare. I think China is a mix of communism and capitalism. The U.S. is primarily market-driven but struggles with the expansion of government regulation. Many around the world are a part of the networked information economy. We have the capability to peer into the governments and political happenings of other nations. Our ability to see their struggles and their ability to see ours exposes the challenges of mixing and matching freedoms to find an ideal balance. In a nutshell, the democratization of technology has led to advancement in culture, economies and our viewpoints, however, the implications have yet to be fully explored. Take a look at this fun video that is a wonderful example of the miscommunication at its finest: Communication: Sender/Receiver, Abbott & Costello Comedy Routine: Although this is an older comedy routine, it is a perfect example of miscommunication between the sender of the message and the receiver. Over 60 years later, we have cell phones, text messaging and, lately, social media as tools to communicate with one another. Jose Van Dijck is the author of The Culture of Connectivity: A critical history of social media which was published in 2006 by the Oxford University Press. She examines the rise of social media with a critical eye. The first chapters explore social media’s governance, ownership, users/usage, business models and technology. The remaining chapters provide examples of social media sites and their impact on our culture. Aside from the author’s thoughts, I will provide my thoughts of the remaining chapters and what would have provided more balance to the author’s perspective.
Conglomeration One of the overarching themes that I see is that the consolidation of traditional media is occurring in the new media (networked world). Brands such as Fox and ABC produce content and own the channels of distribution for the content. For example, Disney’s Hannah Montana show is produced by Disney. The new season is promoted through ABC’s Good Morning America and the Hannah Montana’s popularity is advanced through movies produced by Touchstone Pictures. In the era of the networked world, Google provides users a full platform of services. The user can access the web through Chrome, search the web using Google, view videos via YouTube, check the email with Gmail, store documents on Google Drive and purchase online using Google Wallet. With this, Google can serve users personalized ads based upon the users’ interaction with the platforms. Google owns the platforms to serve the internet to the user while providing features to enhance the users’ experience on the internet. Is this the era of networked world consolidations as the 20th century was the era of consolidated media? Not sure, as this is a relatively new era and one that is less developed than traditional media. The book did not touch on this aspect as much although parallels could be drawn between the two. Ownership Another interesting phenomenon is one of ownership. This is especially true in the story of Flickr. Early adopters of the site tended to claim ownership of it. The users then became irate when corporate interests become involved in the site. Yahoo! wanted the site for the user data while Flickr users wanted to maintain the community aspect of the site. Either way, the company itself remains private which means the owners can do what they surmise is best for the entity. It is not a publicly traded entity. The early adopters equated usage of a social media site with ownership of it. Spending a lot of time at the site and on the site as part of a user community does not necessarily equate to the time and effort spent to develop a site and make it available for use by the end user and profitable for the company. Many social media sites companies struggle with issues of monetization. How does the site make money? Even still, can the site turn a profit? Corporate interests will eventually govern many social media sites. Google sells ad space to organizations and delivers content to users based on the user habits. YouTube offers the same ads either as a pop-up within the video or as a prelude to it. In short, either the user will see ads in exchange for the free services or the user will pay to not see the ads. The old saying “nothing is free” is certainly applicable in this sense. Adhocracy: everyone is in charge, occasionally The author posed the idea of an adhocracy which is the polar opposite of a bureaucracy. In an adhocracy “thousands of ad hoc, multidisciplinary teams form temporary alliances to create and maintain content according to narrowly defined tasks.” This definition applies especially to Wikipedia which has thousands who contribute to the online encyclopedia of knowledge. In short, everyone takes turns to be the leader in their content area. However, this is not quite accurate. The adhocracy is more of an ideal than a reality. According to the author, bots are used for tasking ranging from administration to editing to creating entire pages of data. The bureaucracy still stands and it is governed increasingly by automation. Social media: why not? Users agree to exchange privacy for connectedness. This is truly the users’ choice. The companies can only share what is first shared with them. To play devil’s advocate, it would have been interesting to hear about those who are not on Facebook or other social media sites. What would they say about the world of sharing? Why are they not on these sites? Why do they choose not to engage? Are non-users more connected off-line than their online counterparts? It would have been interesting for the author to explore the other side of the argument. The reader is not provided a balanced view of this larger aspect of social media; those who do and those who don’t. Anecdotally, those who do not engage in social media see the entire concept as a popularity contest. Perhaps, they are right and choose to maintain a sense of privacy. Even the author refers to it as the “attention economy.” Advertisers will pay a premium to get as much of the users’ attention as possible. Everything old is new again The book was published in 2006; it is now 2015. The 11 year real-time span may seem like an eternity in technological years. However, people are not that different. At the core there is a desire to connect with others. Earlier, it was face-to-face via oral history. Then it was through the printed press. Connections were made in places less local. Next, we connected via television to foreign lands. Now, we connect to one another without the previous barriers of distance, time, geography and language. Through these changes, likely, the definition of relationship has evolved much as our tools to communicate have evolved. Maybe at the dawn of radio, many listeners felt they had a relationship with the story teller or news broadcaster. With the advent of television, maybe the listener felt he or she had a relationship with the actor or actresses on the favored television shows. With social media, we think we have a relationship, not with the central character in a broadcast, but with one another. We have relationships with the ordinary person who, much like us, goes to work each day, does what is needed to support the family and has dreams and desires of either a better life or for his or her current life to not change. Social media and its corresponding technology co-exists alongside the other ways that we have communicated for thousands of years. Although the definition of and tools used to establish relationships have evolved, we yearn to be connected to one another. Add social media to the tools we already use to establish relationships. |
ArchivesCategories |