Moreover, a closer examination will reveal that The Wealth of Networks has a vengeful deity, too, one akin to the god found in the first thousand-odd pages of that most famous of Books.  Benkler’s jealous Being is seen in the fundamental message of, at least as I read it, Benkler’s text – that the social production of an information commons and the existence of an alternative to the industrial models of the twentieth century, a networked information economy, does not always have to be about the bottom line.  That, it would appear, is a scary message for some, indeed.  But for those small few of us who have joined with the covenant people and followed Benkler as our Moses in to the World Wide Wilderness of Sinai, there’s a message of freedom and a better world to be had in networks, the kind of wealth in networks that I feel inspires the greatest economic motivation: sharing knowledge, and lifting others thereby.

As Benkler defines it, the networked information economy is an economy that does not have a central hub; it uses inter-networked systems to decentralize production and dissemination.  Now, let’s back up a little.  Upon reflection, the juvenile rendition, or at least the foundation, of Benkler’s networked information economy really grew up in parallel to modern economic systems: those born of the industrial revolution.  An historical overview would show that the original networked information economy was perhaps really born to coincide with the industrial boom of the Western World in the late nineteenth century, not simply after it.  Mass media, as it would come to be known, would utilize the effects of the widespread adoption of communications technologies and services, the newspapers and radios and TVs sold and endlessly fed from their disseminating central origins, to sway society from within.  Benkler discusses the power of this centralization, that the powers that be have controlled information and have given it away only for a price.  But, I think one could pin the seed, or the beginnings of the networked information economy on the birth of the telegraph, insomuch as it represents a potential echo chamber for information otherwise coming from other one-way mediums – although it appears the telegraph’s uses were primarily contained by the mass media and the military.  Despite that, I think the networked information economy’s gestation (and its promise) began with such two-way mediums.  The restraints of time and geography began their erosion whilst modern industry churned out other mass produced one-way information commodities to assist in that erosion.  Yet, information is not a scarce resource in Benkler’s networked information economy, and, it can be controlled from the outside, not centrally.  Its reproduction would not forever need to happen on Henry Ford’s assembly line.  Many decades later the Internet would herald a new age of communicating that the innovators who laid a foundation for it, albeit in other forms (telegraphs and telephones), could not have conceived of, though through their invention made inevitable.

This lack of vision is mirrored in the modern hopeless expressions we see on the faces of those who have reaped major profits and gained greater power from centralized communications in the past.  Incumbents feel the stultifying effects of this wrathful god that is the networked information economy, “weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth“, to employ our scriptural allegory once more, as they slowly lose control to the networked public sphere and its liberal commons.  The elite clamor for answers as the disruptive social production of information resources bypasses incumbent services entirely, and the new democratizing effects of the Web crash the old dogs’ party (see the election of our first digital President, for starters).  Benkler shoots down many critiques against the democratic effects of the ‘Net, for instance, that the Internet will just take on the same form as it mass media forefathers as incumbents pour more and more money in to it. Central forces, be they governments, mass media entities, or even educational institutions can try, but as long as there are disruptive players with alternative motivations, seeking social capital or otherwise, their efforts are totally m00t (to reference TIME’s 2009 Most Influential Person in the World, 21-year old Christopher Poole, aka 4chan.org founder “moot”).

I recommend “The Wealth of Networks” for anybody who has already converted to the newer social media gospels espoused by the Shirky’s, Li’s, and Anderson’s of the world.  These adherents will better understand the messages of such latter-day texts.  However, I don’t recommend Benkler to anyone who is looking for ways to reproduce the industrial economic model in the new age of communications.  If one does that, expect to be smited by the Old Testament-like wrath that is social production power.  Find ways to become an agent in the chaos, not a ruler, and join the tribe.

Reference

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press.

Monty Python cartoon: Television is Bad for Your Eyes

Why is technology always viewed so negatively?  And why is the future always bleak?  Why does it feel like the future-thinking theorists and prognosticators of the late 20th century as well as the present day always seem to be pointing out how present technoproblems automatically mean future pains?

In 1997, Ben Bagdikian (and I’m sure many others like him – I’m looking at you, Tipper Gore) decried the moral depravity of mass media.  Bagdikian, in his afterword to Media Monopoly, examined the most powerful medium of the day, American television, and saw an unregulated space without a moral compass, destined to inevitably lead the nation’s unwitting people astray.

In 1999, information administrators at Arizona State University were struggling with the question: how do we archive important digital records, when deletion and turnover are so rampant?  Unlike paper records of the past, permanent storage of digital records was presenting new challenges.  How would future generations access older digital records as technology and storage media invariably advanced?  Or, in other words, how far backwards will “backward’s compatibility” reach?

Lastly, in 2003, Christensen et al.’s Seeing What’s Next looked at how new communications innovations like VoIP, multiple-service operations (MSOs), and WiFi were already beginning to present problems for standard telecoms.  Chapter 10 of the book considered how established incumbent businesses might want to embrace these new technologies and co-opt disruptive startups – a logical assumption, considering how new technologies could displace older ones, which has never happened in the whole of human history (yes, this is my added sarcasm).  Now, to be fair, they present ways in which entrants to the telecom game, with new toys like VoIP or Instant Messaging, can beat the big dogs at their own game.  Nevertheless, the problems larger providers like Verizon or AT&T face from new entrants fit into the “figure it out or its curtains” motif.

I agree that there is something to all of these clarion calls.  American TV has been a moral wasteland at least since cable’s introduction, if not earlier.  And problems with digital recordkeeping?  The Bush administration “lost” a heck of a lot of official emails through the last eight years.  And in terms of trouble in the tech world, Christensen et al. basically predicted in 2003 that MSOs like Comcast, offering phone services via coaxial cable, and Verizon, rolling out fiber-optic television, would begin spending gads of money to beat each other to death at the others’ games, all for only marginal returns.

So, here we are, in the future itself, but I’m not sure things are as bad as previously predicted.  Sure, even I am guilty of accusing Google of becoming the predecessor of SkyNet in my Neuromancer review, but then there’s merely interesting speculation and then there’s more interesting reality.

For example, Bagdikian talks about how the TV medium was out of control because of a lack of government regulation.  He also points out how calls for regulation are always met with cries of “socialism”.  NHK works in Japan, the BBC in the UK, so why can’t we have something like that here in the states?  If only Bagdikian had considered the Internet.  As far as I am concerned, the masses are responding to all that vapid and immoral televisual thought-control by turning off their TVs and logging-in to a world-wide semiotic democracy.  The true morality of free speech, stemming from the people and not the government, is now winning a fight against regulation.  How ironic!

In terms of record keeping, I am certain many of the problems presented by archiving digital records will correct themselves with the help of a few hardcore computer nerds plugging away in the basements of the very institutions faced with those problems.  As for backwards compatibility, well, the future will just need digital anthropologists.  Maybe.

And, as a former Interactive Television broadcast operator, I welcome the battles of the MSOs.  Convergence is the future.  Integrated hardware solutions will provide solutions for disintegrated software problems, and vice versa.  And entrants like Vonage have their own problems to deal with when free services like Skype rear their beautiful heads.

The future is not bleak.  It’s full of exciting problems!  And hordes of empowered “basement dwelling nerds” like me who will assuredly find solutions that businesses and governments never ever think of.  They might control the pipes, but we control the water.

Until then, here’s Coldcut’s 2006 techno track “Everthing is Under Control“.  Yes, but only for now.

References

Bagdikian, B. H. Afterword media monopoly bagdikian. Retrieved 2/20/2009, 2009, from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/Afterword_Bagdikian.html

Christensen, C. M., Anthony, S. D., & Roth, E. A. (2004). Seeing what’s next : Using the theories of innovation to predict industry change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from WorldCat

Olsen, F. The chronicle: Daily news: 10/15/99 — 01. Retrieved 2/20/2009, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/free/99/10/99101501t.htm

YouTube – coldcut – everything is under control. Retrieved 2/21/2009, 2009, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrQcOmpbkCs

YouTube – television is bad for your eyes. Retrieved 2/21/2009, 2009, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXCpYgd338U

]]> http://nerdacumen.com/reading-reflections-the-ethics-of-the-future/2009/02/21/feed/ 0 http://nerdacumen.com/reading-reflections-the-trouble-with-mass-media/2009/02/10/ http://nerdacumen.com/reading-reflections-the-trouble-with-mass-media/2009/02/10/#comments Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:02:34 +0000 Matthew Stringer http://nerdacumen.com/?p=234 Question 1 – In Yochai Benkler’s Wealth of Networks, we read the following statement in chapter 6:

The core role of the political public sphere is to provide a platform for converting privately developed observations, intuitions, and opinions into public opinions that can be brought to bear in the political system toward determining collective action.

The Internet is increasingly becoming that sphere’s platform.  However, policymakers have tended to enact legislation which seeks to repress activity that great numbers of people within this sphere otherwise view as legitimate.  This is generally perceived as reactive to these activities’ tendencies – they violate previous policy effected for traditional media.  In a recent article published in the Times of London regarding online film piracy (piracy being one such example of a violating activity), Becky Hogge with the Open Rights Group observed:

When you have six million people breaking the law, it’s the law that needs changing, not the people.

How do we change policy to better support new public opinion while still protecting the privileges of those whose past rights are becoming violated, essentially, by new public opinion?

Question 2 – It’s widely held that President Barack Obama has promised a new era of transparency in American government.  How can this transparency be established and maintained in this new media age? Alexander Mooney at CNN, reporting from a 31 January 2009 event with President Obama:

…Obama joked about the ultra-limited access to [the] president’s inbox.  “It’s a very exclusive list. How exclusive? Everyone look at the person sitting on your left. Now look at the person sitting on your right. None of you have my e-mail address.”

In what new ways will public opinion be communicated to those who preside over the public in the social media age?

Question 3 – Benkler observes that mass media does not often lend itself well to in-depth political discussion and dialog. Regarding one such example, talk radio, he mentions the following (again in chapter 6 of Wealth of Networks):

The phenomenon of talk radio and call-in shows represents … the pornography and violence of political discourse – a combination of exhibitionism and voyeurism intended to entertain us with opportunities to act out suppressed desires and to glimpse what we might be like if we allowed ourselves more leeway from what it means to be a well-socialized adult.

As most communications and media outlets (for example the New York Times or NPR or Comcast) move to adopt social media practices, in what ways does this ‘pornographic’ dialog emerge in spaces that one might not have traditionally expected to see it, and how does that impact the formation of public opinion? Also, considering cases of alleged libel, slander, or defamation, as published to forums and messageboards by some users of social media within these new spaces, can such potentially illegal behavior be effectively policed? (see 7 Feb 2009 article in Dallas Morning News regarding one such recent case)

References

Chapter 6. political freedom part 1: The trouble with mass media. the wealth of networks, by yochai benkler. Retrieved 2/9/2009, 2009, from http://www.congo-education.net/wealth-of-networks/ch-06.htm

CNN political ticker: All politics, all the time blog archive – who has Obama’s e-mail address? « – blogs from CNN.com. Retrieved 2/9/2009, 2009, from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/02/who-has-obamas-e-mail-address/

Hundreds who posted views on sex assault trial targeted in tarrant suit | news for dallas, texas | dallas morning news | breaking news for dallas-fort worth | dallas morning news. Retrieved 2/9/2009, 2009, from http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/020809dnmetlawsuit.2bd48105.html

The open rights group. Retrieved 2/9/2009, 2009, from http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

Scene stealer: The aXXo files – features, films – the independent. Retrieved 2/9/2009, 2009, from http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/scene-stealer-the-axxo-files-1214699.html

]]> http://nerdacumen.com/reading-reflections-the-trouble-with-mass-media/2009/02/10/feed/ 0 http://nerdacumen.com/creative-blockage/2009/01/23/ http://nerdacumen.com/creative-blockage/2009/01/23/#comments Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:08:06 +0000 Matthew Stringer http://nerdacumen.com/?p=186 Joe Lambert, in his Digital Storytelling Cookbook, discusses the “olden days” of epigrammatic storytelling (meaning, the sharing of little stories with folksy proverbs at the end – which, if you’re Frank Capra, you build into entire movies, right?)

Lambert goes on to discuss why it’s so hard to tell stories nowadays:

“…we are bombarded with millions of indigestible, literally unmemorable, story fragments every time we pick up a phone, bump into a friend, watch TV, listen to the radio, read a book or a newspaper, or browse the Web. We cannot process these into epigrams, recite and retain them, and so they become a jumble of fragments that actually inhibit our ability to construct a coherent story.”

I believe we really are faced with information overload in the digital age. A fellow student asked me during Hanson Hosein’s storytelling class last night how I come up with a story idea, and the first thing I could think about was the converse; how I more often than not DON’T come up with a story. I have creative blockage nine times out of ten. I think this stems from the glut of material we are bombarded with, and as a self-proclaimed media junkie, I’m especially subject to such overload. Perhaps that’s why my artistic creations are often abstract. Perhaps the popularity of abstract art in the later part of the 20th century, particularly Pop Art and post-modernism (I’m looking at you, Andy Warhol) combined with the MTV age is just an inevitable natural response to the tidal wave of media consumed by the last few generations (TV, radio, and print in particular), as well, of course, a big part of it itself. There is just so much out there now, we’re saturated in our own blood, wounded with the shrapnel and bleeding from the blast generated by this narratological H-bomb dropped by The Mass Media. As far as I’m concerned, this saturation has stunted our storytelling capabilities. But, it also presents a challenge, the challenge to sift and filter and overcome, and with that challenge, the potential to truly shine.

So, how do you overcome your creative blockage?

Quotation above taken from Joe Lambert’s The Digital Storytelling Cookbook, Digital Diner Press, Feb. 2007