Thought Paper: October 25

The Commercialization of a Dream: How the American way usurps idealism.

This week’s paper has been inspired by two of the readings from Critical Cyberculture Studies (Eds. Silver & Massanari, 2006), Fred Turner’s essay “How Digital Technology Found Utopian Ideology: Lessons from the First Hackers’ Conference,” and Gina Neff’s “ Associating Independents: Business Relationships and the Culture of Independence in the Dot-Com Era.” Turner explores the development of utopian information ideology by examining hackers of the 1970s and 1980s and the events of the 1984 Hackers’ Conference. The media myth of hackers is that they are loners and late-night prowlers, additionally they are portrayed as warriors in fight between commercialization of information, software and the Internet and the “Free software” movement or as I know it the “Open source” movement—Linux (OS) and Sakai (collaboration software) are current examples). Based on the six values of the hacker ethic (Levy, Steven. 1984. Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution), early hackers began the creation of a utopian view of their work

1. Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works—should be unlimited and total.
2. All information should be free.
3. Mistrust Authority—Promote Decentralization.
4. Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.
5. You can create art and beauty on a computer.
6. Computers can change your life for the better.

These early hackers were primarily working for major research institutes as MIT and Stanford. I would suggest that it is easy of promote the free diffusion of technology when you are employed by a university and funded by government grants.

Not all feel into the “Free software” camp, Turner points out that Macintosh designer Bill Atkinson defended the commercial practice of copyrighting and selling software. Bill Gates is a notable example of the proprietary model of software development. By the mid-1980s (the time of the Hackers’ Conference), the commercial model was winning out. The attendants were only able to agree that “the free dissemination of information was a worthy ideal,” and never could reach a consensus on the correct approach to face the upcoming challenges of the software industry. As we now know, the commercialization of the software and information industry is the dominant business model. The laws suits by music, movie and software companies against average consumer who have “illegally” downloaded the companies copyrighted material through peer-to-peer (Free software) networks is an example of how seriously corporate America is about protecting their property. With few examples—Linux and Sakai, among others—the idealism of the early days of computerization has given way to American way of capitalism.

Neff’s essay explores the transition of New York’s “Silicon Alley” from the bohemian art and content driving Web sites to the profit driven sites of online advertising companies and business oriented software businesses. Neff’s argues that the transition was not only driven by the external influences of the financial markets and investors, but the shift was in the change of cultural values within Silicon Alley itself. Neff examines the parties, gatherings, and events of Silicon Alley to explore the changing social and culture networks of New York’s Internet industry.

By looking at who attended which events from 1997 to 2001 using the “Cyberscene” social column of the online trade publication AtNewYork, Neff was able to see a trend in the institutional make-up of the event attendees. Early on the events were attended by start-ups, Internet content and art sites with no representation of financial interests, but by 1999 the arts were relegated to a minimal role and other industries—financial, TV-Radio-Film, and PR and Advertising) made up the networking block with start-ups and Internet content. Neff argues this shift occurred before the heavy investment of Internet companies.

It also illustrates another example of how the capitalism and commercial interests usurp the idealism of the early Internet entrepreneurs. Now gone are the original art sites, with their ideas of art for art’s sake (ada’web, The Blue Dot and Rhizomes) or desires to promote high culture (Word.com and Urban Desire), and what remains are the DoubleClick’s (online advertising). Neff states:

…when Silicon Alley began to experience financial success it coincided with the destruction of the diversity of company types in the industry, as culturally oriented sites were scuttled and digital advertising firms, e-commerce firms, and consulting firms began to gain recognition in financial realms (296).

One final note, I find it interesting that in both of the essays it is offline events that help to define the participants. In Turner’s essay, it is the first Hackers’ Conference that defines the hackers’ identity. In Neff’s essay, it is social networks and events that define the power and cultural shifts of the New York Internet industry. As Neff writes, “face-to-face business meetings remain important to Silicon Alley.”

Thought Paper: October 18

I have concluded that I am one of the few New Media guys that do not believe the new democratic Cyber-Utopia. I do not see evidence of the new engaged voter, the institutional transparency or free-flowing public discourse made possible by technological innovation. In New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen, Philip N. Howard explores the evolution of “hypermedia campaigns,” the people behind them, and the social and culture issues involving the campaigns and the technology they utilize. Howard’s treatment is a sober and shies away from the typical hyper-euphoria hype of current New Media studies. He may well share my unUtopian views.

Unlike many of the readings we have had, Howard looks at the impact of the actions of the decision makers—the campaign managers, strategists, and programmers. One decision is data mining—the collection of personal data from multiple sources, data originally collected of other purposes—and a practice considered by many to be outside privacy norms. The second decision is to use the mined data to narrowcast the campaigns message by tailoring the message the web site viewer will see when they are online. Without letting the viewer know of the tailored content, the practice could easily be considered deceptive and propagandizing.

Why should these practices surprise anyone? Advertising and public relations have been using this type of data for years, the Internet just makes it easier to gather and distribute (DataBank.com). In the past, candidates tailored the campaign’s message to each town or group they visited; each speech reflected the interests of a particular audience. Now the programmable nature of the Internet makes it easier for the campaigns to deliver customized and targeted information to the web site’s audience.

Other components of “hypermedia campaigns” are the development of software applications by the New Media providers. Though some of the examples Howard gives, like streaming video, eCommerce solutions and possibly even the data mining solutions, could as easily trace their origins to the porn industry. Again, this is not a new occurrence for media systems—Ben Franklin developed better ink for printing and early television and filmmakers developed better equipment and processes—so why should the new medium be different. Innovation is always a component of early media development. More instant feedback to the campaign is another component of politicking on the Internet; campaign managers enjoy the immediacy of the feedback to allow the candidate to alter the message as the campaign develops.

There is no denying the Internet makes many of the tasks needed for campaigning easier to accomplish and implement, it makes it easier voters to access candidate information and for voters to communicate their wishes and needs to the politicians. Like television, radio, films, and newspapers before it, the Internet—when used responsibly and effectively—is a great tool for disseminating information and engaging voters in the electoral process. Just do not expect it to create an upwelling of electoral pride, participation and wide spread democratic engagement.

Thought Paper: October 5

It seems that actual research is catching up with the study of New Media. Slowly the analysis of the Internet’s role in society is moving away from questionable data, shoddy methodology, or mere conjecture. The age of reason and empirical investigation is beginning to dawn over the cyber-landscape. This is a common thread through many of the readings for this week from Society Online: The Internet in Context (Howard, P. N., & Jones, S. (eds.), 2004). As the early mass media was feared for its “magic bullet” effects on the public, so to the Internet has suffered from the extreme bi-polar predictions of cyber-Utopia and virtual singing of “Kumbaya” by handholding Avatars to ruin and collapse of the world and civilization as we know it.

As Rice and Katz, determined in “The Internet and Political Involvement in 1996 and 2000,” the Internet had a mild impact on the 1996 and 2000 elections, and by extension, our political life and/or our democratic system. Internet usage or lack of usage was not associated with increased political involvement. The offline politically uninterested will most likely remain uninterested online. Cyber-life follows real life.

In “The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities” by Pippa Norris, the data reveals that online communities have not replaced the face-to-face interaction of individuals and groups. As with Elana Larsen’s findings in “Deeper Understanding, Deeper Ties: Taking Faith Online,” online communities and religious groups are mildly affective at bonding like-minded individuals and slightly less affective at bridging individuals with differences. The role of these online communities is to augment the physical relationship – with ease of information gathering through communal Web sites and interpersonal communication through email – not to replace them. People have not abandoned their houses of worship to join boundless spiritual enclaves anymore than hate Web sites have attracted new membership (see Southern Poverty Laws Center study) to enclaves of hatred and bigotry. Socially and ideologically homogeneous people will gather, online or offline, and the adventurous will seek out the diverse. Cyber-life follows real life.

As these studies reveal, the Internet is not the pantisocracy or the Pandora’s box that early “visionaries” predicted. It is showing itself simply as a new tool in the age-old activity of communication—interpersonal or mass. Granted this communication is quicker, Interactive and features some cool shiny add-ons, but at the end of the day, it is still the communication mankind has be practicing since our first grunts. Cyber-life follows real life.