Class today provided clarity to a reading that I had trouble digesting. The concept of noise made me think about the constant streams of information coming from people and places. So many people make so much noise that I am surprised how much is translated into information. It reminds me of a ball of yarn or a ball of rubber bands, you see it as a whole instead of them as individuals strands or bands.
One of the most interesting ideas in the book so far is that network culture is constantly accelerating, not necessarily positive or negative, but it is moving forward. I am curious as to what exactly separates those that make noise from those who can interpret others. Using the internet as an example, sometimes I don't understand how so much of the same information is ranked and put in a pecking order. I am very curious as to whether the internet will become confusing because of the amount of information. Will there be more illegitimate information than legitimate? Will the trust factor always be there?
nice post, Abe. the rubberband ball is useful. Some of the ways to think of information ranking: Google's algorithms, and the way they can be gamed; the implicit choices made by any search engine; the ways companies can buy their way up in search engines; the difficult time the US government has dealing with massive amounts of information held in different databases; the potential for more efficient forms of data-mining and who might want to exploit that potential. Maybe more confusion is better.
ReplyDeleteMaybe more confusion is better, maybe. You mentioned the possibility of someone exploiting potential. Wouldn't you think this is one fear of the internet? There is no kind of screening process or security for individuals surfing because of the anonymity of the web. I think this is a risk users will have to live with. As with anything where risk involved, people will do what they want. I guess that's why freedom is so popular.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of confusion possibly being better; confusion acting as a reminder that all things can't be trusted, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteI fear over the impossibility to parse all the information, but this is an old problem put into simpler context because of the literal data-basing of information as it occurs through the use of networked computers. We can see all rubber bands now, but we could have gone our whole lives without thinking about it before.
There were always people whom others gave authority to in their dealings with the world on a day to day basis, be they a ruler or a priest or what-have-you, but it's never been the case that people were able to know all the things that there are to be known or to easily discern between what is true and what is false.
But now the relationship between those with the power to shape a person's interpretation of the world is brought into contrast with so many others, I suppose that could be seen as a positive change. Or that the shakier nature of a person's foundational viewpoint actually makes them a better citizen, voter, whatever... it might make us all so unsure of ourselves that we are unable to admit that we know anything. Then again, I'm not sure that anyone really thinks like this outside of an intellectual discussion?