-
Website
http://www.natalidelconte.com/ -
Original page
http://www.natalidelconte.com/2009/10/technological-determinism-is-false/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Ok, seriously, I do feel equally dissapointed about how technology hasn't changed us enough. I think technological advancement is not a linear and constantly progressive in nature, rather it has many branches of which some continue to grow while some dry out and fall to the ground. If you look at the history of aviation for example, there are so many nifty inventions that never made past a blueprint or prototype while some became part of our everyday life.
Another point to remember when thinking about this sort of thing is that some people tend to assess what's going on in the "world" based on what's going on around them (i.e. the US or the western countries in general) Why is it in the movies aliens always invade New York?
So, what about media freedom, digital divide, decentralized control etc? As long as humans continue to contribute to technology, there will always be a bit of human nature in it. So the real question is not if technology has changed us but have we changed the way we embrace and go about dealing with it. After all, human development didn't start in the 90s. It's wasn't always a positive trend either. (There were times when the Greeks forgot how to read and write) We can never expect things to just magically get better. I think we are in for a huge expectations bubble burst not too far in the near future.
"New media" is the favorite term of many these days, but it simply can't succeed without "old" media's content. Considering the real power in these technologies lies in the people behind them, and how they use these technologies, maybe we need "digital sociologists," who focus entire careers solely on understanding people's behaviors online, regardless of the technological platforms they're using.
I agree that the Internet's love affair with new-ness is pervasive, but cautious, tamed optimism and eagerness for innovation can also help great ideas grow that might otherwise never reach adoption.
Determinism in this field sounds like wishful thinking on the part of those who control certain areas (or hope to). New is not always better, but it is always inevitable (I think).
You can do better. Better than this. C'mon, what do you really think? What do *you* have to say on the subject? Something I was struck by, through conversation at the BOL meet-up, was your appetite for knowledge. Your pursuit of information. It's one of your better qualities as a person I'd say.
But this particular post seems more preoccupied with sounding articulate, without articulating anything in particular. Uses a whole lot of syllables, without saying a whole lot.
You have a wealth of experience and expertise. You have our attention. Your voice has value. So, let's hear it!
John McMillion
San Diego, CA
Any advantages the major media producers had before the Internet still apply; these are namely visibility, resources, connections, and scope. Plus, the already big media producers get the same advantages given by the Net as the little ones. The Net empowers people by removing the barriers of physical production, publication, and distribution. For small bloggers or podcasters, that's everything when it comes to having a voice.
Visibility works both ways, though more effective going from real-world to online than the other way around. Entities that have great real-world visibility will start off with much higher visibility online than the average blogger. Twitter is a great example of this. As soon as it became mainstream, all of the top-followed people were ones who were already real-world celebrities of some kind. However, because bits are endlessly copyable, it's possible that Just Another Average Blog can become a focus for the attention of the entire Web, provided their server can handle it. For this to happen, the content needs to be interesting, compelling, or include cats. Aggregators like Digg help to bring the best content to the surface of the pool that is the Web. This attention isn't forever, though, since news does generally require that the information be new.
Major media outlets are not just a single blogger or journalist anyway, so it's no surprise they can hold attention and maintain the concentration of power and control. A single person going it alone rarely commands the same kind of audience, especially a sustained one, that a whole team of journalists does. The "love affair with new-ness" results in the attention moving on from a topic after the novelty wears off. A large group ("old" networks like CNN, or "new-ish" ones like CNET) has the collection of content that will keep the attention within its domain. Some blogs, like Engadget, become continual centers of attention, but they do so by becoming big. Much of what they report on isn't even new for many, either. It seems as though there is often a tradeoff between novelty and visibility, though I'm not sure how much of a dichotomy this really is.
I think that the communication tools we should watch out for, and encourage, are ones that reward compelling content with visibility. Obviously, compelling to whom is the real question, and in most cases compelling will be determined by the crowd at large. Robert Scoble has been making a fuss about Twitter's lists, saying that they will change the game from having the most followers to being on the most lists. His reasoning is that lists will help to distill the users who have the most interesting content. Tools like that are the ones that will help the average blogger become noticed, they just have to provide compelling content, then push it and get people to notice.
It seems that the internet is an incubator for creative business, media, and ideas. Its viral nature combined with low cost has reduced the incubation time for these ventures, and therefore their MTBF. The ideas spew out daily and are replaced with new ones the next, and the paradime shifts. The only constant is change. But were assured that everyone is focused on the internet.
So given all this hoo ha, why not have a discussion about the evolutionary next-steps for the internet? What will ubiquitous bandwidth bring, if anything? Will the masses tire of texting? Is twitter just a phase or will it clog with spam just as email did and become something boring we do at work? What are the similarities between the evolution of email and that of twitter, if any? I want to know if the internet is the technology of the future, or just the obsession of the day. Is there something else out there that will change our lives in a more profound way, and were all missing it because were too busy harvesting someones crops in farm town?
Inquiring minds want to know!
T
"Information wants to be free (because of the new ease of copying and reshaping and casual distribution), AND information wants to be expensive (it's the prime economic event in an information age)... and technology is constantly making the tension worse. If you cling blindly to the expensive part of the paradox, you miss all the action going on in the free part. The pressure of the paradox forces information to explore incessantly. Smart marketers and inventors quietly follow-and I might add, so do smart computer security people." (Stewart Brand)
Information has become cheaper. Broadcasting that information has become cheaper. Building a platform that adds value to information is at the core of Web 2.0 and social networking sites, by letting users rank, vote, forward, or comment on the information. The question becomes, to what end?
Joe is shouting in a tunnel... and his shout may not be heard today any more than it was heard before the Internet. However, if Joe is providing information that people are curious about, and if that information is hard to find elsewhere, the shouts will be heard. Or, if a social networker is able to cross Joe's tunnel with Sue's tunnel and Bob's tunnel, then their voices might be heard more readily... if what they are saying is unique or interesting.
Society shapes itself with whatever tools are at hand. In the case of the network as a tool, the network doesn't care whether the information it distributes make the world better or not. The people making use of the information have to decide that.
For example, the same network allows Obama Campaigners or Conservative Tea Party Planners to use facebook and twitter to organize events. If facebook did not exist, however, these events would probably still happen... the organizers would have to use a different tool to get the word out.
Society may not use the tool to shape itself for the better... the network doesn't know or care that its pipes are filled with a gazillion megabytes of porn or serves as a recruiting tool for a hate group or a terrorist organization.
When information production and distribution were more expensive, publishers and broadcasters would seek authoritative sources to protect the value of their investment. As this becomes cheaper, and viewers are flooded with information, now the viewer (not broadcaster) seeks a way to find authoritative sources, to help reduce the information clutter and protect their investment in time. This puts Joe right back in his tunnel, not getting heard until he is deemed an authoritative contributor. At the same time, the broadcaster increasingly moves away from authoritative to novelty, in the interest of picking up the pieces of their fragmented audience.
If Joe is blogging in a forest he should probably get attacked by a bear for not enjoying mother nature, or maybe Google should be applauded for finally establishing free wireless internet across America. But seriously though, yes, Joe *could* make an impact. In fact, the impact of technology and greater access to information on society is tremendous...mostly because of these average Joes. And I think it's really interesting to watch these days.
The latest events in Iran come to mind, with the "revolution" that unfolded almost entirely on Twitter and across the internet. Technology doesn't level any playing field necessarily, but it does push the information domain to new heights. I'm not worried about media as a business, but I do find it interesting how technology has established information dominance as the driving factor for the future in just about every field.