Final Exam!

I used every resource I could when taking on this final exam. I went to brainstorming session with the class in the library last week, I looked at my blogs, I used information from my second papers, my Wikileaks power point, and relevant texts that assisted me in answering the questions. Below, my answers, and the answers discussed with others were a mix of exchanges of thoughts and feelings on texts that helped us in answering each question. I tackled this exam over the course of three days.

1. Eric Raymond contrasts the cathedral and the bazaar. What point is he trying to make with this contrast? Is his argument consistent with his title? Why or why not?
Eric Raymond contrasts and discusses the software builders in The Cathedral and The Bazaar. He makes it clear that open-source engineering is better than enclosed development. Some points he is trying to make are in open-source development are a genuine interest in the project that the developers are working on. Enclosed development is different, in this situation; developers are assigned to specific duties. In open source movements, projects are seldom started unless they have the means to accomplish it. Eric Raymond argues for open-software, he argues that “the best hacks come from harnessing the power of the entire community”. This arguments and ones I previously states are for open-source software.
I do not believe that Eric Raymond’s argument is consistent with his title because the title implies that he is considering the positives and negative of each style. I believe this means he will give equal time to analyze, compare, and contrast both. In reality, he does not do what I think, he actually just discusses open-source development and fails to discuss the pros of enclosed development.
2. My Definition
Siva Vaidhyanathan argues that Google has capitalized on public failure. What does he mean when says this? How is this argument connected to the question of regulation?
In the Googlization of Everything by Siva Vaidhyanathan, she argues how Google has capitalized on public figure. This means that design flaws in public services and regulation have allowed Google have a stranglehold over the internet. Google has grown tremendously over the past decade, and their power and authority have come from them controlling the accessibility of information. The failure of the government to control or regulate the internet has helped Google become one of the biggest powers in cyberspace.
According to Siva markets fail when they cannot organize to supply an essential public good. At which point, public intervention becomes justified.
Brainstormed/Discussion Answer
As stated in The Googlization of Everything, there are many different facets to the company “Google”. For some of these aspects, regulation is a tangible and almost acceptable concept. For example, the issue of YouTube and the hosting of copyrighted content. Viacom has been adamant about YouTube (owned by Google) taking down videos that contain copywrited content. Governments in more authoritarian countries have regulated other facets of Google, like the very search function. However, in the United States, Google has gone largely without regulation. In fact, Google seems to have a working relationship with the government. President Obama has voiced his cooperation with the company, hosting his videos first on YouTube.
The collaboration of the government and Google almost makes one think that Google should be regarded as its own type of agency. It would seem that Google is the regulatory authority on the internet; after all, it does decide which content is viewed via the search function. Google even holds sway with service providers. When the net neutrality debate was going on, it could be argued that Google was the driving force behind proponents of net neutrality. Google defended the traditional model of the internet against companies that wanted to implement “pay for your bandwidth” policies. In both of these cases, it could be argued that Google is a powerful regulatory agency of the internet.
(The Googlization of Everything, Siva Vaidhyanathan)


3. What drives social media? The best answers will think in terms of both the users and the features of social media. They will also refer to the "The Viral Me."

My Answer
Social media is driven by several factors. Entrepreneurs and companies create the platforms that users are able to connect. Some of these include Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace. These platforms allow people to share thoughts (Twitter), purchases (Swipley), pictures (Facebook), and locations (Foursquare) with friends and strangers all day long. Users are attracted and connected to these platforms because it involves flooding the social market with information users want out there about them. The article “Viral” discusses different ways to look at users by them getting lured by their desires to show off, be heard, reaffirm themselves, and be included.

Brainstormed/Discussion Answers
Social media allows users to immerse themselves into their social life at all times. There is not a single moment when solitary internet browsers can be disconnected from the outside world. This is appealing to some people. Social media is often tailored to the exact desires and interests of the users. In networks such as Facebook, only relevant ads are shown, only your friends are publicized on your news feed, and only people who you know can write on your wall. Therefore social media allows users to focus on the things that they deem important, and not “noise” from the outside world.
(The Viral Me, Devin Friedman. Blog Theory, J. Dean, p. 113-119)

4. In what ways does an eighties "hacker culture" shape Wikileaks? How does this differentiate Wikileaks from more traditional journalism? What are the benefits of these differences? What are the drawbacks?
The eightes “hacker culture” has shaped Wikileaks because it has been influential in the continued existence of the site. The “hacker culture” has always rebelled against “the man” by using technology in order to better the lives of citizens. Both use secrecy to their advantage by using what available to them, but not revealing their sources of how exactly they did it.
I think an eighties hacker culture shapes Wikileaks, because it influences the way they go about getting and revealing their information. On the Wikileaks site, they say they are dedicated to bring important news and information to the public. They also say “we publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices. This quote is one of the ways Wikileaks differentiates them from traditional journalism, they reveal their sources, and as a citizen this makes me think of wikileaks as suspect because of their failure to do this.
The benefits of Wikileaks are: revealing their sources would compromise the security of their organization and sources. Their privacy allows them to publish stories that often disclose top-secret information that we would otherwise not be privy to. The benefits of Wikileaks are unbiased information to the public, and releasing stories that otherwise might be held from the citizenry. According to my presentation on Wikileaks a couple weeks ago, the negative aspects of Wikileaks is that it often discloses government secrets that should not be disclosed to the general public, it serves as a threat to democracy, and creates international conflicts. For instance, there could possibly be military information released that could put our troops in danger, or at least cause concern to the government for releasing this kind of information.

(Wikileaks website research/Wikileaks powerpoint)

5. What does Mark Andrejevic mean by "digital enclosure"?

According to Mark Andrejevic, he believes the internet provides the paradigimatic example of a virtual digital enclosure, one in which every virtual “move” has the potential to leave a digital trace or record of itself. Andrejevic states “Digital enclosure is meant to envoke the land enclosure movement associated with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the process whereby overtime communal land was subjected to private control, allowing private landowners to set the conditions for its use. Overtime, the enclosure movement leads to the formation of distinct classes; those who own the means of production and those who must sell their labor for access to those means, whether arable lands or factories”
My own understanding of a digital enclosure is the internet’s cove where a user cannot move through this space without leaving a digital footprint.
Brainstormed/Discussion Answer
Mark Andrejevic’s “digital enclosure” is the surrender of our privacy in exchange for the use of a service. The people who own the infrastructure for the use of technology can set the terms of usage.

(iSpy, Mark Andrejevic)

6. Does interactivity entail democratization? Use Mark Andrejevic to answer this question. What are the repercussions of your answer for analyzing movements.org?
I don’t believe interactivity entails democratization because unlike real life, in the cyber society, users don’t necessarily have say over anything. Users have free access to move as they please, but in terms of control I believe it is limited. In Mark Andrejevic’s ispy, he says that decentralized totalitarianism is used as an extension of the version of interactivity offered by the commercial sector, in other words, I believe he means allowing people to believe they have the power will keep them interested. Andrejevic says that this version of interactivity will amount to actively sustaining the scene of one’s own passive submission. I see interactivity as a game of tug-o-war, and companies and others who persuade users to continually use their services are winning. I believe users are motivated by the illusion that they are in control, but in reality, this acceptance of control validates a company’s perpetual exploitation of them.
Mark Andrejevic states “Interactivity invites participants to embrace the very goals that are exempted from deliberation as their own” (Andrejevic 44).Analyzing Movements.org, they want to make social and are appealing to the youth demographic, but I am skeptical of their reasons behind getting the youth involved. From looking at their website, I am not exactly sure whether they are solely out to get my age range involved, or to reel us in with products we consume. Andrejevic states “Interactivity invites participants to embrace the very goals that are exempted from deliberation as their own (Andrejevic 45). They make their statements inclusive by using the word “we”, but the youths who buy into this are really being sold products that are cross promoted with their company. With this said, I feel that interactivity is not democratic, nor do I feel it is equal.
Brainstormed/Discussion Answer
Andrejevic’s argument applies very well to the organization “Movements”.Movements.org relies on the façade that the use of interactive networks can produce positive change in the tangible world. Through the harnessing of Facebook and other social media, users can make a change with minimal effort.
(iSpy, Mark Andrejevic)

7. What is the connection between technology and refusal of work according to Franco Berardi?
Franco Berardi sees a relationship between the idea “refusal of work” and the rise and surge of technology. This idea of “refusal of work” comes from a mindset in the 1970’s that you did not feel like working that day, you had the option to do just that. Laborers were able to have a schedule with specific, set hours because of the regulation of the industry and the surplus of jobs that weren’t dependent on technology. This mindset crumbled due to the deregulation of the industry and the rise of technology. Instead of having specific responsibilities, employees were required to be available to their employers all of the time.

Brainstormed/Discussion Answer
Berardi calls these types of jobs “cognitive labor”. These jobs did not required that the laborer be available and working at all hours of the day. With the rise of new technologies, like cell phones and smart phones that allow emails to be read on your mobile device, employers have even more control over employees.Now, laborers are paid for the timely and punctual delivery of assigned tasks, not the labor that occurs between the hours of 9AM to 5PM. The refusal of work, combined with the rise in technologies has resulted in the virtual enslavement of the educated working professional.
(Precarious Rhapsody, p. 72-82)

8. According to Franco Berardi, why do problems like panic disorder, ADHD, and depression increase under semio-capitalism?
My Answer
According to Franco Berardi, these problems increase under semio-capitalism for two reasons. First, the rates of Attention Deficit Hyper Disorders have increased because of the amount of information that is available to people today. The rise of the internet has made information easily accessible and it has somewhat resulted in an overload of noise. The problem is out minds process information quickly, but the speed and quantity of what we comprehend causes us to lose some of the meaning of the information, and our comprehension decreases.
Brainstormed/Discussion Answer
Panic orders and depression are caused by a different phenomenon. As mentioned earlier in his book, Berardi believes that the average non-physical laborer is now tethered to their job via communicative devices and in increase in the entrepreneurial ethos. With both unemployment and the cost of living rising, employers have the upper hand over their employees. Workers are held to a higher standard than is physically or mentally capable for some, and as a result an increase in the rates of panic disorders and depression. To the average worker, it is better to be medicated and work at a super-human level than to fall behind the competition because of “mental deficiencies”.
(Precarious Rhapsody p.99-102, 109-120)

9. According to Nicholas Carr, what does the internet do to our brains? How does he use the idea of brain plasticity in his argument? Is it persuasive? Why or why not?
My Answer/Blog
According to Nicholas Carr, internet use is having a measurable effect on the human mind. Studies have shown that the brain adapts to outside stimuli, rerouting the neural connections where they are best used. This change of neurological behavior is the foundational belief behind the theory of “brain plasticity”. This is the thought that the human brain is malleable, and can change according to the material.
I think it was interesting how he feels that the mighty power that is the internet is making us dumb. This is interesting to me because the world wide web is perceived as a place of knowing and knowledge. His feelings lead me back to a discussion that we had in class three weeks ago, when we talked about the speed of things does not allow our brains to process anything deeply. This said, it makes me agree with what Carr is saying because knowing that information, pictures, what have you, are there, why internalize it?, or better yet, why take the time to thoroughly process it when it will always be on the internet where we can always access it.
Thinking about the reasons behind this, it's almost like the internet is becoming our second brain. I believe our reasons for liking instant gratification stem from the fact unlike our own brains, the internet won't forget anything. It can store infinite information and can access anything and everything at first thought, and the click of a mouse.

(Nicholas Carr, The Shallows)

Discussion/Brainstorming
Carr’s assertion is that due to the massive deluge of information on the internet, the human brain is changing in a way that could be considered detrimental. To Carr, the plethora of visual, aural and intellectual stimuli on the internet is causing the human mind to think faster. However, we are not thinking about the information as much. In exchange for our enhanced speed, we are losing out on the ability to comprehend and remember information. Instead of contemplating and thinking about specific ideas or concepts for an extended period of time, we “juggle” them, not thinking about them for that long. To Carr, the implications of this development are vast. Memory has been affected. When the collective human history is concentrated in one location, there isn’t really a reason to retain it.

10. Why is it in Google's interest to get us to click on more and more links? What are the repercussions of this for Google? What are the repercussions for people? Does it make sense to use the notion of efficiency to think about thinking? Why or why not?
Google does benefit from users clicking on more and more links because users look to gain traffic through promoting their products and their brands through Google.
Discussion/Brainstorming
Google’s efficiency has resulted in far more relevant advertisements. As previously mentioned, only strong ads get placed on the main search page of Google. As a result, the most convincing ads are placed where the most people can see them. Google’s advertising strategy ensures that the public only views the strongest and most convincing ads.
It makes sense to use the notion of “efficiency” when discussing the human thought process.
Nicholas Carr argues that the human brain is transforming to process data faster (albeit with less delicacy). Studies have shown that the human brain acts differently when an individual uses the internet. This evidences the notion of human efficiency of though. Our brains have the capability to ensure that we process things as fast as possible, indicating efficiency of thought. If humans could not adapt to be efficient in their environment, it would surely mean the end of the race. However, humans have thrived on earth, indicating that efficiency is a core concept of the human mind.
(The Shallows, Nicholas Carr. P.155-157, 221, discussion)

Twenty point question. Be sure to engage and cite material from the course in your answer. You may use texts assigned during the first half of the course (chapter two of Terranova may be important here).

Students had the option of changing the way their work in the course would be assessed. You could change the requirements as well as the way these requirements would be weighted. Why didn't you do this? In answering the question, consider what you personally did or did not do as well as what your fellow students did or did not do (I'm asking you here whether you think your own reasons/motivations were the same or different from those that you attribute to others). The best answers will thematize the effect of the media terrain. For example, digital networks are supposed to facilitate communication; they are supposed to enable people to connect with one another easily; is this the same as enabling/inciting people to come together to evaluate problems, formulate options, and make decisions? Might the same technologies that reduce friction also displace action?
I honestly don’t understand why we had the power to change and did exercise this right. Personally, any changes I though t needed to be made I voiced them as comment on other people’s blogs in order perpetuate conversation. I can recall three weeks ago, this topic came up, and I gave suggestions on a peer’s page suggesting that the reflection should be 10 to 15 pages and other comments pertaining to end of the year work. I feel like the lack of people showing enthusiasm with adding to the blog conversation is a major reason why no one felt the need to make changes. I feel like my comments towards it were caught up in a non-circulating blogosphere where people either didn’t feel the need to comment, or didn’t feel like blogging for reasons beyond me.
As far as the classroom, I feel like things were not discussed because people felt they had to express themselves in the blogs instead of in house. I think it would have been beneficial if we had taken one class day to have a discussion on how we want to go about this, a student only meeting where everyone would get an opportunity to voice their opinions and feeling towards how class should be structured from that day on. Though my generation is computer saavy, I feel like some students were more enthusiastic than others about blogging. I think the first grading period, when you posted the graph on our blogs was a telling sign about the difference of blogging and posting in general among students in the classroom.
Those students who dropped the class during the first week, I believe, were the ones who had true problems with the structure of the class. From the readings over the semester, I think Franco Berardi and sections of Blog Theory relate most to this situation. First, our discussion on the fast movements of images and information on the internet makes it difficult for us to focus, and thoroughly internalize something. I feel with all of the other blogging we were doing that was not relevant to discussing the syllabus, let alone other platforms on the internet that take our time away from the blogging platform, how could we devote time to fully voice our opinions on syllabus structure. With this said, I feel like this should have been taken care of in class. It would have taken 30 to 40 minutes for everyone to get together and figure out what, why, and how they want it to be. Then, the student or students supervising this meeting would then present this to you as a proposal, and if accepted, this is what we would have done, all hands on deck.
I do believe that the same technologies that reduce friction also displace actions. It’s interesting how after we realized we could change something, people were more concerned, but yet few people followed through and put their voices on the blogs. Lastly, I believe that though the platforms were available, there were various reasons as to why people did not choose to you. I feel some people felt, since they talked in class, there was no reason to blog, and if there was no reason to blog, if they had feeling towards the syllabus structure or other things in class, they wanted to discuss them in class. I was the opposite, my voice was on the blog, occasionally in class, but I felt my thoughts and ideas could flow more online. Unfortunately, the conversation thread was not perpetual as it should have been because of the nature of the class.