discussion points:
the war efforts are turned into a "profit"
privacy is given up to prepare for war
technology aspect comes into play because of surveillance.
technology is used by politicians to gain voters.
Creators of Facebook watch us, but we are not able to watch the creators of Facebook....just like how politicians use surveillance to watch us but we cant see what they are doing behind the scenes to know who truly is the correct choice.
Iraq war was the first interactive war. Government tricks us into giving up privacy by easing minds and getting info.
Us trying to prevent terrorism has actually formed a bigger terrorist union. Networking.
What happened:
It was hard to blog and discuss at the same time because our discussion kept taking drastic turns which at times made me forget points that were made. We did this process by bsically just havong a class discussion and just running off peoples ideas, one to the other.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Trouble With Chapter 6
After reading this chapter i am having trouble connecting the two topics of "Mobilizing Risk" and "The Reflexive Threat" with the idea of technology. I feel that these two parts are more so about the war on terror in general and only relates back to how it ties in with technology at the end so it seems to flow.
The section "Mobilizing Risk" tries to say that the war on terror is not only an "interactive" internet war but also could be described as the political mobilization of a climate of general risk. This is to say that, like with the case of 9/11, the war on terror has the ability to show the public how easily everyday objects could be transformed into devastating weaponry. He continues to state how terrorists have also shown how easily raw materials of daily like could be tainted to become part of a terrorist attack. He concludes this section basically by asking if we see everyday raw materials, should we expect the worst or should we continue to live our lives thinking those materials are doing what they are suppost to do?
The section "The Reflexive Threat" talks about how we, humanity, with our civilizing decisions, actually cause global consequences that trigger problems and dangers that radically contradict that institutionalized language and promises of the authorities in catastrophic cases like the attacks on Washington D.C. and New York City. "The Reflexive model is ultimately one of self-implication: our own actions participate in the genration of risks in ways that remain largely opaque" (171). He concludes this section by saying that with the rise of technology and anti-terrorism programs, terrorism as a whole will too rise. "Terrorism is intimately connected with technologization" (172).
These two topics separately make sense but back to back i am having trouble understanding how they relate to the main concepts of the book.
The section "Mobilizing Risk" tries to say that the war on terror is not only an "interactive" internet war but also could be described as the political mobilization of a climate of general risk. This is to say that, like with the case of 9/11, the war on terror has the ability to show the public how easily everyday objects could be transformed into devastating weaponry. He continues to state how terrorists have also shown how easily raw materials of daily like could be tainted to become part of a terrorist attack. He concludes this section basically by asking if we see everyday raw materials, should we expect the worst or should we continue to live our lives thinking those materials are doing what they are suppost to do?
The section "The Reflexive Threat" talks about how we, humanity, with our civilizing decisions, actually cause global consequences that trigger problems and dangers that radically contradict that institutionalized language and promises of the authorities in catastrophic cases like the attacks on Washington D.C. and New York City. "The Reflexive model is ultimately one of self-implication: our own actions participate in the genration of risks in ways that remain largely opaque" (171). He concludes this section by saying that with the rise of technology and anti-terrorism programs, terrorism as a whole will too rise. "Terrorism is intimately connected with technologization" (172).
These two topics separately make sense but back to back i am having trouble understanding how they relate to the main concepts of the book.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Digital Enclosure
"Digital enclosure - the creation of an interactive realm wherein every action and transaction generates information about itself" (2).
This idea that Mark Andrejevic (Mr. A) introduces is used to describe the path that every digital "move" takes. Mr. A tries to explain that even though one may see this definition and try to imply physical space, the concept also applies to virtual space, like the internet. An example of how this works is when we purchase things online we leave detailed records of our information which then transfers over to search databases. Another example is the "clickstreams" that are responsible for us getting to the location we have ended up at on the internet.
Although the virtual space is a big part to the concept of Digital enclosure, it is not the whole meaning. Mr. A uses the term enclosure not only to invoke the notion of space, but also to highlight the process of enclosure, whereby places and activities become encompassed by the monitoring embrace of an interactive (virtual) space (2). The enclosure may occur when we buy items online, our information may be sold to third parties or used by marketers for targeted advertising campaigns.
I think this term is interesting because i have always found it odd whenever i buy items online they ask some strange, unnecessary questions which could be a part of movement because it adds information to the internets total database in the end. The idea of clickstreams is also interesting because there are many time where i will be just browsing the internet and next thing i know im looking at something im very interested in purchasing. How i got to this point, i do not know, but it must have something to do with planned out advertisements by certain web sites.
This idea that Mark Andrejevic (Mr. A) introduces is used to describe the path that every digital "move" takes. Mr. A tries to explain that even though one may see this definition and try to imply physical space, the concept also applies to virtual space, like the internet. An example of how this works is when we purchase things online we leave detailed records of our information which then transfers over to search databases. Another example is the "clickstreams" that are responsible for us getting to the location we have ended up at on the internet.
Although the virtual space is a big part to the concept of Digital enclosure, it is not the whole meaning. Mr. A uses the term enclosure not only to invoke the notion of space, but also to highlight the process of enclosure, whereby places and activities become encompassed by the monitoring embrace of an interactive (virtual) space (2). The enclosure may occur when we buy items online, our information may be sold to third parties or used by marketers for targeted advertising campaigns.
I think this term is interesting because i have always found it odd whenever i buy items online they ask some strange, unnecessary questions which could be a part of movement because it adds information to the internets total database in the end. The idea of clickstreams is also interesting because there are many time where i will be just browsing the internet and next thing i know im looking at something im very interested in purchasing. How i got to this point, i do not know, but it must have something to do with planned out advertisements by certain web sites.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Digital Hoarding
I think the concept of digital hoarding is very interesting and i would consider myself somewhat involved in this idea. I believe that term to meen one who keeps documents on their computer, that were once important, and refuse to delete them because of the idea that this person 'may need them'. This site i found describes this concept perfectly and this helps to tie into our class discussion last week.
http://www.geeksugar.com/Digital-Hoarding-9793605
http://www.geeksugar.com/Digital-Hoarding-9793605
Monday, February 7, 2011
Class on February 3
First off i think its pretty interesting how we all wrote down discussion points and put them int he middle of the room but only really discussed #8 from the questions put on the projector, but i think this only proves how many way people may interpret Lanier. I was very happy when Kat started off the discussion with exactly what i put on my paper which was i have difficulty getting into the book because of my inability to understand his terminology and the lack of help he gives to the average computer user.
I feel You are Not a Gadget is primarily for the advanced technological folk. I don't see a problem with this but it makes my life very difficult. I understand points he is making but unlike others in the class have trouble disputing things he says just for the obvious fact that he knows a whole lot more about technology than i ever will. I can argue some of his points like combining music and technology (his music isn't particularly 'good') but that's about it at this point.
I do agree with Tim Hollingers' point that maybe he has written the book the way he has so people have to take time to read this and truly understand the points he tries to make. I think that is a very interesting point and may in fact be correct, but even with this in mind it does not change my opinion that this is for the advanced users because of the phrasing and wording he uses and assumes we all know what he is talking about...I think we all know what happens when people assume....
I feel You are Not a Gadget is primarily for the advanced technological folk. I don't see a problem with this but it makes my life very difficult. I understand points he is making but unlike others in the class have trouble disputing things he says just for the obvious fact that he knows a whole lot more about technology than i ever will. I can argue some of his points like combining music and technology (his music isn't particularly 'good') but that's about it at this point.
I do agree with Tim Hollingers' point that maybe he has written the book the way he has so people have to take time to read this and truly understand the points he tries to make. I think that is a very interesting point and may in fact be correct, but even with this in mind it does not change my opinion that this is for the advanced users because of the phrasing and wording he uses and assumes we all know what he is talking about...I think we all know what happens when people assume....
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Networking & Football
Facebook is generally used for people to share photos, reconnect with lost friends and family, and to interact with friends but C.J. Johnson learned some people are using it for different reasons. As i was stumbling through yahoo yesterday i came across this article which hits home with me personally. Johnson is one of the highest recruited players in the country for the 2011 high school football class but recently made the decision to log out of Facebook permanently after coaches from Mississippi State constantly sent him inboxes and wrote on his wall trying to convince him to commit to them. He says many other schools did the same and claims Facebook has made his recruiting process a 'nightmare'. He published one last status update before he deleted his page:
"This is my last Facebook post and I'm gonna leave facebook with this. Linda Johnson has never worked as a house worker making 100,000 dollars a year and I will not be a Mississippi state bulldog and I'm not considering Mississippi state anymore bc you have constantly comment on my page send me crazy inboxes and has made my recruiting experience a living nightmare. Goodbye facebook."
I went through the recruiting process as well and i cant even imagine signing in to Facebook everyday to just connect with friends but instead to log in to propaganda sent by potential future coaches. I feel there needs to be a line set by the NCAA regarding Facebook because it could cause recruits, like Johnson, to go for or against a college because of posts made by a coach. It will be interest3ing to see if in the future the NCAA makes a ruling regarding networking like Facebook and Twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)