"Free Labour" Anderson and Terranova

When reading chapter 3, I was able to understand some points Terranova made. It was interesting for me to see her connection of the Internet to the Capitalist society we are a part of. I found these ideas of Capitalism very interesting considering the fact that in my other class with Jodi Dean we are talking about the idea of Capitalism as well. It was interesting to see the idea of Capitalism in our networking world. The chapter actually starts off with a quote from Marx ("the real not capital is labour")

Terranova: (Focus: Free labor)

I really liked Terranova's example when she talks about the American Online volunteers investigating whether AOL owed them wages after hours  of hard work promoting AOL chat rooms. Yes, the Internet world was expanding! However, the digital media is a form of individual consumption. Leaving those who labor online  them with no income. Terranova talks about those that work for the production of the Internet as "netslaves." The Internet requires upgrades and loads of work in which people are not paid for and given the compensation they deserve. Terranova analyzes this idea of "free labor" and tells us that "free labour is the moment where this knowledgeable consumption of culture is translated into excess productive activities that are pleasurably embraced and at the same time often shamelessly exploited." I think this was an excellent point made by Terranova because it really emphasized and focused on her idea of the Internet as a labor being taken for granted. The work you put on creating websites like Facebook, Myspace and etc is  networking labor that gets no compensation. No one likes to do work for free. What defines work is labor. People are willing to be "slaves" almost.  That's what I got from what she was saying.

Anderson: (Focus: Free Products)

Anderson's point stood out to me because of his argument about the era we are a part of. Anderson informs us that  "we are entering an era when free will be seen as the norm, not an anomaly." He talks about the Internet as something that should be free. Its content is meant to be free because that's what the people want. He doesn't really analyze "free labour" like Terranova does but rather elaborates on why the future of the net should be free and will become more free. The Internets progress tends to steer towards what people want which is a free net. He is more concerned with the actual products "content" of the Internet other than the labor behind it.  I think his argument is interesting. I really thought about Prof Dean's point in her comparison of Anderson and Terranova. I thought about the rates of unemployment in the U.S. If everything is free. There would be no money. No one to pay people for labor. This would just increase unemployment.

I think Anderson and Terranova make some interesting points that our worth thinking about in the arguments on "free labour." I'm interested to see in what direction Terranova takes us next.

Network Culture, Tiziana Terranova Ch 2.

"Information is not simply transmitted from point A to point B: it propagates and by propagation it affects and modifies its milieu."

Information is transmitted from one area to another and by this it affects its environment. Chapter 2 was definitely a better read than chapter 1. In chapter 2 I was able to better understand Terranova's point. Chapter 2 took parts of chapter 1 that were hard to understand and put it into perspective for me. What I got from this chapter is a better understanding of what "noise" is and its affect on network dynamics. Information goes through different channels which are interpreted differently to each individual person. Information importance depends on the channel that it becomes a part of. It is upto the individuals own experience with information to determine its message. Information goes through different channels meaning that one person can gain a different perspective of information.  Another person can gain a different idea depending on what channel the information passed through before getting to each person.

The sentences in this chapter that really helped me understand what Tiziana was conveying were on page 65. Tiziana states that, "messages are broken down into packets and each packet is sent out into the network to find its destination by being relayed around through a network of autonomous and decentralized nodes. If any obstacles arise along the main lines, the various packets can be sent out in different directions to find their own best possible routes. " 

Information is all over the web and is interpreted differently by different people. Each person's interpretation might influence the next. The message many times can get lost in these channels. If "obstacles" as Tiziana describes arise messages go in different locations. Individuals are the routes that these messages travel towards.. We each grasp information in different ways. Information can be altered depending on individual interpretation and individual experience. Information is always changing.

Network Culture, Tiziana Terranova, Ch 1.

Information Focus: Content vs. Signal

When I first began to read Terranova's book I thought it would be a bit easier than Lanier's book. At first the book seemed like it would be easy and straight to the point. However, after the first few pages and its introduction I realized this was not really the case. I found myself lost in some of the language Terranova uses. However, the most important point I got from the first chapter of her book is the concept of informtation on the web. Information is every where on the web. One simply types a word on google and a variety of links to gain information pop up! It's the greatest thing the Internet has to offer.

However, Terranova helped me understand some key points about the abundance of information on the web. She touches on this idea of "global culture." A culture which allows us to be dependant of the Internet because of its massive information. However, in her first chapter she helps us understand how overwhelming Internet information can be. The actual "information" one was looking to gain is lost and it no longer becomes an issue of meaning but rather signal. Tiziana describes what information has become in our 21st Century culture. Something she states that helped me deeper understand the message she was conveying in her first chapter is that "we know at least two things about information: that is the content of a communication act; and that there is something less material about it, at least judging from the ease with which it goes from mouth to to ear and ear to mouth." What I understood from this is that as information is processed the actual content is lost behind it. Information most go through a clear channel in order to be understand. She talks about how information is not about the meaning behind it anymore but about NOISE! The actual noise is what makes the message. It can actually form the information other than the actual content.

Information goes through a set of different channels. However, noise can affect its overall message and what the source is trying to tell us. These channels in which information is transmitted many times become clogged not letting people actually grasp the material. We are overwhelmed with the actual concept of information. Information many times is affected by outside sources that actually affect what we gain from its meaning. She explains that "communication also includes the possibility of a corruption of the message in transit by noise." We become overwhelmed by uniqueness, commonality etc. We focus on other concepts of information that may impact its transmission. We are left with tons of channels with an abundance of information telling us different things.

Interruption!...Great another Ad!

As I was blogging and doing a few other things for other classes. I came across a multitude of ad's. Don't you hate those ad's that say  "YOU ARE A WINNER?" Free IPOD! One gets happy and clicks it thinking it is actually true? Well many of us nowadays have become immune to this! We know not to click this! As for me well......I learned the hard way! My 30 second moment of happiness turned into 2 weeks on unhappiness when struck with a virus!

However, after reading points made by Lanier and our class discussion. The point that struck the most to me in Lanier's work was the use of ads. I thought deeper about the use of ads and how it influences us. Technology has actually allowed for corporations to become even more invested in our personal life. Even though one doesn't voluntarily give away information about the personal things we like, corporations buy information from the sites you visit in order to get a better idea of what you like. They will do anything to make a profit. Once they know of a particular interest you may have, they will bombard you with ad's that may show you certain interest they think you may have. If one shows to like a certain artist you will get emails about their upcoming concerts and etc. If you like a certain kind of brand. You will get hundreds of emails about sales even around your area! YouTube is a perfect example. One searches a song that one likes and on the side of YouTube there will be tons of suggestions for artists like the one you like or ad's that spark a particular interest corporations think you may like due to your searches. I found it very hard to go on websites without in a way coming across another ad!

I found this to be a very interesting point made by Lanier. One is bombarded by ads sometimes even making it harder to resist shopping online! Yes I am a victim! However, im still unsure if ads are a positive aspect of the Internet or a negative one. In a way ads help keep web pages alive and may actually give us some valuable useful information. Other times it can just be an annoying way to get people to spend their money! However, how would the Internet work without ads? Would it become harder for companies to make money? In what ways do ads influence you personally?

Lanier Finale 4/5

Lanier Idea: "We should reject cybernetic totalism as a basis for making most decisions but regognize that some of its ideas can be useful methods of understanding."

We shouldn't let the computer think for us. We are the ones in control.

My first response when coming to the end of this "Manifesto" was thank goodness. Although, Lanier makes some good points and is very opinionated in his writing it was hard to understand him sometimes. He kept jumping from point to point in a almost very abrupt manner. It was clear that his audience wasn't necessarily college students but computer programmers like him. In the last 2 sections of his book Lanier takes the reader through a different angle. He directs us through what he believes is a "more positive focus" on the Internet. He examines "human culture" and its development, this complete interaction with the "cyber world" which is greater each day.
What makes us "human" is the ability to function independently and think for ourseleves. We are free to choose. We are conscious of the things around us which make us different from computers. Computer's are our creation. Many computer programmers believe that one day computer's will have the same qualities as humans. However, we should not forget that computer's are just a creation. They are not "human." We have a freedom of choice in terms of what to look up and what to analyze. Computer's have no choice. We tap its buttons to make this "device research" ideas for us and help us. Lanier mentions the idea that computer's are able to regognize patterns. Computers can now regognize facial expression. A quality much like that of a human. The problem that is rising from computers is its way of "thinking." We can not make the mistake to treat items like humans. At the very end he wraps up this idea of human attachment to technology. He talks about "Computalism" this idea of humans and computers as a whole.
However, computers and humans are completely different. Computer's follow commands while we have expression, feelings and emotions. Computer's aren't able to smell. Those senses are specifically unique to just humans,  Computer functions can be a bit "human like" but never be exact to what humans are. How can we think that this gadget can be human?  Lanier rejects this notion that computer applications are like humans and we should treat them like humans. Humans can identify who we are, computers will never actually be self aware. As humans we are losing our sense of reality due to technology.
  Lanier is truly about individuality and creativity. I really liked the fact that he values these human qualities.However, their were many parts of the book I wasn't so fond of. I do believe that the Internet has brought forth a lot of positive notions to our society. Thanks to social networking such as Facebook people are becoming reconnected each day. The Internet besides its negative aspects have shaped the life of many people. The Internet has had a positive impact on some and a negative impact on some people. It all depends on how one decides to manage the Internet. I am very happy I got to view Lanier's perspective. However, I am happy that we are moving on from his book. I look forward to the other readings in the class and what I will learn about the networking world!

Power Laws, Web blogs, Inequality: "A Popularaity Contest"

DIVERSITY + FREEDOM= INEQUALITY
EXTREME INEQUALITY

Each minute of the day there is someone in the world blogging, about to blog, or thinking of blogging. Within minutes ideas are flourishing and the most popular ideas are making headlines. As a new member of the blog world myself due to the Digital Networks class I have learned so much about blogging. I now find myself looking at blog sites interested to see what people are blogging about! However, there was something very interesting that I noticed when I googled Blog sites. The first thing I noticed was the choice that listed the top blog sites. The websites name was choice number two called http://www.topblogsites.com/. This website serves as a directory for the top blogs in each category. From that very experience of blog searching, I was able to fully understand what the power law reading described. It described this idea that although blogs are open to all for free writing only the ones with the most popular reviews are really looked into and praised by readers. The success of a blog all depends on how popular it is. Not everyone’s blog is heard although it is made easy for everyone to put anything online. Usually the same kind of people will like a certain blog not leaving enough room for diversity. The more blogs are created the less likely it is for the ones at the bottom to become read. Those that were first aware of blogging influence others thus, making blogs a system in which preference is key.


The essential point made by the article is the idea that “Diversity plus Freedom of Choice creates Inequality, the greater the diversity is, the more extreme the inequality will come to be." This stood out to me as a very ironic idea. However, becomes an idea that is very well comprehensible and understood. The idea that now anyone can put something up and has the freedom to do so doesn't specifically mean that their blog will have an equal opportunity to be looked upon. The idea creates a concept of a bell curve format. Blogs by top performers are at its height while those with the least followers, although have great points are at the bottom. There is an unequal opportunity to be noticed due to a "preferential" element to blog creation.

A very important point the author makes is that”few blogs will be more popular than average and a few less, of course, but that will be statistical noise." It all depends on how likely it is to be read. This in a way connects in a way to favoritism. The author breaks down the preference level in a blog by what it has to offer and explains 3 different factors which include,

1.) Preference Quality: (Recommendation of others)

2.) Preference Marketing:  (Value in reading Blogs people you know read)

3.) Solidarity Goods: (The most enjoyable to read)

Blogging in a sense is like a competition. Everyone wants to get their voice out and has the right to do so. However, only those with an already set kind of popularity set are more successful at blogging. The more the blogs the harder it becomes. I thought this article was very interesting and gave out a lot of good points. It really related to my own life and experience with blogs. When searching for blog sites I was more interested in the ones with the most comments and ratings then the rest. I am an example of a person who looks into blogs with the most views and comments in order to make a decision. Blogs are very influential depending on how many people like you or that you may know are reading them as well.  Blogs are like a popularity contest the ones on top will be most likely to be more appealing.

You are not a Gadget Part 2/3

Jaron Lanier is a very interesting writer. As we progress and proceed reading Lanier's work, my perception of what the Internet is and its components have changed. He has been able to open up my eyes to the impact that the Internet not only has had on my personal life but in the music industry as well. Lanier, sticks out to me as a person who values creativity and individualism. From watching his video with his long dreads and hearing a bit of his music one further witnesses his unique character. In the second and third part of his book I was able to understand Lanier's beliefs on what the Internet has done for artists. He speaks out on the use of the Internet and the effect it has on music. As a music lover and someone who frequently likes to browse through YouTube I was instantly interested in the points he would make on the connection between music and the Internet.

Lanier talks about this idea of  a musical culture created by the Internet. This culture known as a "open culture."  A culture in which new artists are using the Internet in hopes to promote themselves and become a "big shot." Artists are using the Internet promoting music and making sure their talent is not only shared locally but with the world. The Internet makes this goal easy. He believes that the Internet creates an unrealistic idea since their are only few that actually make it. The Internet makes people believe that they have a better shot at making it when they really don't. Their idea that they will actually become artists is socially created by the mindset the Internet has bestowed upon us. People believe the Internet is the best way to promote their music. Music is now just a click away. However, this idea further ties to the idea that he introduced in part 1. This idea of creativity and individualism becoming challenged by technology. Lanier not only targets the rise of new artists on the Internet but also how the Internet is used as a source to advertise. People advertise through the net. I really liked how Lanier articulated his argument. He makes valid points and can be very persuasive. However, I disagreed with his opinions on the use of ads. He describes how much the Internet has changed further. In his description he mentions that at the start of the Internet this was something unheard of. Now ads are everywhere online. However, I disagree because I believe ads help people become informed and help fund many of the websites people view. People promote themselves online. Ads online have made many people successful. I think that some of the negative aspects of this "open culture" he describes are actually positive ones because of the way they have shaped the life of many people for the better.

The point that I agreed with Lanier the most on is his argument on "file sharing." I also believe that file sharing has really affected musicians. "File sharing" is a concept created by the Internet. It was because of the Internet artists music has been shared essentially hurting the artist and record company in someway. Artists need fans in order to become popular. The Internet makes this easier. "File Sharing" is something Lanier seems to have a problem with. However, I think "file sharing" has actually helped some artist spread there music if they aren't able to sign it to a record company.

People are using YouTube in order to create a fan base. Those that don't have a fan base and yet are still very talented are left behind. I agree with this point in a sense. There are many people who have launched great careers thanks to sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. However, I do believe that many artists are made famous more because of their popularity on the net other then maybe their actual talents. Leaving some very talented unrecognized. Lanier makes good points. He lets the reader wonder about the type of generation rising. The more I read Lanier's work i think about how dependant we have become towards the Internet and makes me think deeper about the large impact it has created and continues to create.

YOU are NOT a Gadget: Part 1

I am Robot VS I am Human

According to the dictionary, "humans" are characterized by their ability to have a highly developed brain capable of  reason, language and problem solving. These qualities make us "humans." We are self aware and are able to understand each other. In the book, We Are Not a Gadget, Jaron Lanier, makes us think deeper about our role as individuals. He asks the reader "what is a person? and goes on to explain that if he "knew the answer to that, he might be able to program an artificial person in a computer. but he can't being that a person is is not a pat formula, but a quest, a mystery, a leap of faith." Our roles as humans and our ability to comprehensive and enhance our own ideas is limited to a source that does the work for us.  The "Internet" and general use of the computer is able to reason and is a problem solver. The Internet seems to solve problems humans have a longer time solving. It is scary to think that humans and the use of technology are becoming so similar. This "gadget" Jaron Lanier focuses on in his book really helped me understand the deeper impact the Internet has on our daily life. His arguments were valid in making me understand this " lock in" concept of the Internet. A concept which helped me understand the idea in which the Internet has become a source that sucks humans in because of the way it facilitates our life.

A very important point that I liked in the book was Lanier's explanation about technologies grand affect on people and how it alters people's life. I think it was an idea that many of us can relate to. Many of us cant imagine a world without the Internet. The Internet is a source of communication and a social network in which people connect and interact with each other. Millions of people are connected to the Internet each day. Any alternation a web page can have can have a different impact on people and the way they perceive the information they are receiving. The Internet has a profound influence in our lives. Many times these "gadgets" humans created ourselves can become almost in a sense a guide in the way we live. Lanier states that when " developers of digital networks design a program that requires you to interact with a computer as if it were a person, they ask you to accept in some corner of your brain that you might also be conceived as a program." This particular sentence stood out to me because of how radical the idea was. As, I write this blog I am using the Internet. Does that mean that I am being conceived as a program? Internet programmers try to spice things up on the net to keep humans intrigued and in the world the Internet creates.

Lanier goes on to describe the use of popular personal pages people create such as facebook and etc. These websites can tell you about a persons life and within these pages a persons creativity is lost. These personal pages form a new form of "culture." A " web culture" that is taken over really taking away the person's concept of actual reality. These sites were used for commercial use in order to wrap young people into this world. The Internet was constantly finding ways to gain more fans and now of all ages. The Internet has something interesting to offer all humans. However, it is now becoming a part of everyday life. The Internet as described by Lanier starts looking almost like a form of religion! Lanier makes some very powerful statements of the Internet in the first part of his book. He sees it as something that started as a simple tool to inform people and enhance human knowledge that is now overpowering human knowledge.

Lanier really opens up his book with the negative aspects of the web. However, he assures us that not everything in the Internet is a "cruel maze in which people get lost in." He does a great job in explaining to us how the Internet movement became a phenomenon and how it brought revolutionary changes to the world. It brought so many changes to our world that in some way it has almost "human qualities." I really like Lanier starts of the book. He really points out some key important points of Internet usage and makes his book very interesting. Each page intrigued me more. He opened up my eyes to ideas I never really think about as a daily Internet user. The Internet keeps growing and becoming dominate in society. I am interested to see what other points Lanier makes in other parts of the book. Technology is something that we are so dependant on. I personally don't know what I would do without the Internet. However, the Internet has become a source that is dictating the way our life should be. People's creativity,Independence and personalityes are being lost within this simple looking "gadget."