The Future of the Internet

This week’s reading was The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It by Jonathan Zittrain.

I could not help but feel from the very beginning that his comparison between the generative Internet versus the appliancized Internet was elitist rhetoric. Zittrain assumes the vast amounts of technical skill required to program at a fundamental level and criticizes consumer-based software as a tool of authoritarian control. While I recognize Zittrain’s point—that as we abstract the software development further and further from the producer and toward the end-user it becomes increasingly less configurable—I don’t find anything in the way of a solution. That doesn’t mean Zittrain’s call to arms is without merit; it means that he is circumventing the real debate: how much control we will allow the end user—by crying foul.

Obviously the answer is not to train the citizenry in web-based coding. Short of that, what can we do? Zittrain seems more inclined to pinpoint how a compromise will not work rather than consider what sort of regulatory measures, safeguards of industry, and legal restrictions might integrate “the Internet” into our daily lives.

I am not sure what to take away from this text. I understand that the potential for abuse is rampant; that seems to be the case in any adoption of new technology. I doubt any of us today would feel comfortable using a credit card in the late 1970s or early 80s. Did we need a Zittrain then to tell us that the solution was an individual-credit-based-liability system? No. We required intervention, standardization and penalties for laws that were violated.

While Zittrain raises a lot of interesting arguments, he seems to rejoice in throwing up his hands at the problem as though he has uncovered some fundamental fissure in our society. What really are his complaints? That what was once a hobbyist’s pursuit is now the avocation of the mainstream? That interconnectivity is lost on the amateur who fails to recognize the consequences of sharing data?

Zittrain raises interesting insights but seems satisfied to remain a classifier of “the good old days.” For those willing to give Zittrain the benefit of the doubt, I would ask they turn their attention to the three page introduction titled, Solutions. Herein, Zittrain outlines the apparent dilemmas faced by contemporary networks: as the medium becomes more mainstream, the requirement for standardization and ossification increases. Zittrain describes the future of the internet as follows: “Developments then take a turn for the worse: mainstream success brings in people with no particular talent or tolerance for the nuts and bolts of the technology, and no connection with the open ethos that facilitates the sharing of improvements” (150). Perhaps I am not as elite as Zittrain but the sharing of code seems to have begun in a substantial fashion in the 2000’s with the mainstreaming of Linux; hardly a system embraced by the average user.

Perhaps the most baffling exhortation is Zittrain’s insistence that we not adopt “a strategy that blunts the worst aspects of today’s popular generative Internet and PC without killing these platforms’ openness to innovation” (150). Precisely whom does Zittrain believe is developing the PC platform; developing popular websites? The greatest condemnation I can levy against Jonathan Zittrain is that he appears to have no faith in the organic, grass-roots organism that birthed the modern PC. He is quite ready to declare the Linux OS an endangered species only because he ignores how much innovation occurs outside the Windows Intel/Mac OS spectrum. In my opinion Zittrain describes a world that was never so ideal and contrasts it with a world that is not nearly so dire.

The Exploit - A Google Search for Myself

In reading “The Exploit” by Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker this week, I was prompted to look at the way the current state of the internet allows one to communicate their true selves. The book is a study of the effect of networks on communication and the internet is the network that takes a leading role in a lot of the arguments in the book. I would like to examine the effect of the internet on interpersonal relations as t relates to our interpersonal network.

“The exception is that one is either online or not. There is little room for “kind of” or “sort of” online. Network status doesn’t allow for technical ambiguity, only a selection box of discrete states” (126).

The social nuance we all take into account when meeting a new person and giving the presentation we deem appropriate cannot be provided for in online communication.

According to Carole Wade and Carol Tavris’ textbook “Psychology,” body language is an integral part of communication between persons. We use body language (different in most every culture) to judge is people are being sincere. According to “Psychology”, “When people are talking to each other, a mismatch of body languages will make a conversation fell ‘out of sync’; they may feel as confused and emotionally upset as if they had had a verbal misunderstanding. In contrast, when people’s gestures and body language are in synchrony, they feel greater rapport and emotional harmony” (415). We cannot account for the vital part of communication in an online forum, unless we are communicating via live. Streaming video, and even then, insincerity plays a major role.

“It is frustrating, ambiguity is, especially from a technical point of view. It works or it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t, it should be debugged or replaced. To be online in a chronically ambiguous state is maddening, both for those communicating and for the service provider. The advent of broadband connectivity only exacerbates the problem, as expectations for uninterrupted uptime become more and more inflexible. One way to fix the ambiguity is to be “always on.” Even when asleep, in the bathroom, or unconscious, all official discourses of the Web demand that one is either online and accounted for, or offline and still accounted for” (126).

Of course, the rigor necessary for an accurate display of persona online in entirely unrealistic. I would be surprised if I was able to update the different venues of personal advertisement I ascribe to (such as my blog, Facebook or Twitter) more than once a week. Unless you have spent a moderate amount of time with the in-person Rebecca Case, you are unlikely to grasp any real idea of who I am. The interesting thing is, however, who’s to say the representation of myself any one person has seen is anything close to accurate?

In terms of web demand, “The Exploit,” describe it this way:

“Search engines are the best indicator of this demand. Bots run day and night, a swarm of surveillance drones, calling role in every hidden corner of the web. All are accounted for, even those who record few user hits. Even as the Web disappears, the networks still multiply (text messaging, multiplayer online games, and so on). The body becomes a medium of perpetual locatability, a roving panoply of tissues, organs, and cells orbited by personal network devices” (127).

We are to conclude that even if we are not reached through the Internet directly, there are many networks that still link us to the world. I would argue, however, that no matter the venue, there is no means of communication, even direct eye-to-eye communication that can truly relate who we really are to the other individual. One can argue that, the best way of expanding our personal network in a genuine way is through direct physical interaction.

6 Degrees

Duncan J. Watt’s “Six Degrees” describes a model of modern technology that explains how we are all connected. Like some of the other readings we have studied this semester, he offers few concrete conclusions (not unlike danah boyd). Watts attempts to research and study the nature of complex connected systems. He begins his analysis with the small world phenomenon. He describes the paradox of the small-world problem: “That two people can share a mutual friend whom each regards as ‘close,’ but still perceive each other as being ‘far away’ is a facet of social life at once commonplace and also quite mysterious.” This is one of several aspects of connectivity that he touches on, but does not provide a remedy for.

The main concept of the book is this notion of “six degrees of separation.” Watts states that this idea was first conceptualized by fraternity boys at Albright College, who were movie buffs and noticed a connection of all actors to Kevin Bacon (93). There was a system devised and people were given a Bacon number that corresponds to how closely they are linked to Kevin Bacon (hopefully, my Bacon number is a 6 plus).

Although this assertion would lead us to believe that this system of separation may only work for the world of actors, Watts claims it is true on a much larger scale. He states: “First, the science of networks has taught us that distance is deceiving. That two individuals on the opposite sides of the world, and with little in common, can be connected through a short chain of network ties – through only six degrees – is a claim about the social world has fascinated generation after generation.” Watts offers many examples of how this is true and how we are linked. He notes a power blackout on the Western Coast of the US caused by different lines of cable being connected and dependent on each other. He also talks about epidemics and how they are spread though our connected world. Watts argues that, when networks have been disrupted by either a collection of minor events or major shocks, we traditionally have tried to understand the disruption by re-creating events rather than studying the network’s structure. If he was writing today he might discuss the recent recession and how we may have better understood it by looking at the economy as a whole and the connections in that network.

However, true to form, this is not the end of the argument. Watts goes on to show the counter point to this line of thinking by pointing out: “But even if it is true that everyone can be connected to everyone else in only six degrees of separation, so what? How far is six degrees anyway? … So as far as extracting resources is concerned, or exerting influence, anything more than two degrees might as well be a thousand” (300). So, I guess when we look at networks on a micro-level, we are not as closely connected as we thought. As far as getting a job or causing influence, being a mere 6 degrees away from another person doesn’t mean anything. Watts notes the difference as being on a “first name basis” versus being on a “can I borrow your car” basis.

What I struggle to understand is, what exactly is Watt’s point? He seems to undermine each observation by the assertion that what he has described is largely meaningless, unpredictable, and novel. The world he describes is meaningless, the connections he describes are endlessly contingent. I have to ask: What is his point? It seems to me that in an effort to be excitedly pro-new media he has inadvertently reaffirmed that new media rests upon the socioeconomic foundation of good, old-fashioned capital.

Teen Identity Online

This week’s reading was from danah boyd’s dissertation “Taken Out of Context.” She writes about how MySpace and Facebook have played a part in the identities and social lives of American teens. She puts much emphasis on the presentation of self through a media that is very complex. One of her essential points is that a person cannot control how they are perceived through these sites. She opens up the fourth chapter with a bio on a seventeen-year-old girl named Allie. Boyd states that Allie’s MySpace profile is “a social oddity, in the sense that hers is the first generation to have to publicly articulate itself, to have to write itself into being as a precondition of social participation.” I would argue, however, that this is not the case. I am six years older than Allie and I also used an Internet portal to describe myself in a short paragraph. It was my profile for AOL Instant Messenger and I spent countless hours coming up with the perfect combination of quotes, jokes, and personal information to present the “best” version of myself. This was my personal precursor for how to relate over Facebook. I already had a sense for what was appropriate to put in a public forum about myself and what would make me look unfavorable. And I would argue that we have had to write ourselves into being long before the Internet. For example, when writing a resume, one puts as much effort into the wording or the editing of what should be left in and what should be taken out. Also, newspaper biographies are another example. In order to participate in the society of those who are published, one must create a text that describes them without the benefit of a face-to-face meeting.

One key difference is the number of people who participate in this practice. I would agree with boyd that “while creating a tangible digital identity is relatively simple, negotiating the technology to engage in acts of self-presentation and impression management is complex and different from how these acts play out in unmediated environments.” There was no way for me to know that even though I was painstakingly thorough in producing my online image, I had no way to know if I was being taken out of context. And maybe that contributes to why I have always been so motivated to continually update my profile, whether it be Facebook, AOL Instant Messanger, or Twitter. Boyd states that “teens often do not want to let their profiles get stale because they think that this leaves a bad impression” and think this is true of adults as well.

The other part of boyd’s dissertation I wanted to touch on was the section about deception online. Boyd states: “Some teens seek to create rich profiles, while others maintain profiles that provide little information. Yet among both groups, uncountable teens respond to requests for name, age, location, income, and other demographic information with responses that do not accurately reflect the teen’s “true” identity.” Part of her reasoning as to why some are intentionally deceptive related to a sense of safety. For example, I may say I’m 18 even though I am only 13 in order to appear more mature and less able to be taken advantage of. But I would like to note that, at times, in my generation, lying about age was done for an opposite reason. I’d say a lot of teens lie about their age in order to qualify themselves for more “adult” behavior online. Such as the pre-teen that claims to be twenty-something in order to engage in a mature chat room conversation.

While boyd’s dissertation is interesting, she struggles with the same sort of accountability and documentary issues we all are grappling with today. Her work amounts to online ethnography, and it is hard (for me at least) to accept any online cultural artifact without full documentation. Admittedly we read only a small portion of her work, but several of her claims could have been more fully developed.

This is a movie poster for a Lifetime original movie concerning children chatting online, which I think is funny.

Cybertyping

The focus of Lisa Nakamura’s article “Cybertyping and the Work of Race in the Age of Digital Reproduction” is the way that the Internet “propagates, disseminates and commodifies images of race and racism.” She coins the term “cybertype” to define this idea; in other words, it’s the new media version of a stereotype.

I think she makes a lot of interesting arguments in her discourse. It is easy to think of the Internet as a utopian entity, where everyone has equal and homogenous Internet presence. But this is clearly not the case. I know personally, whether I intend too or not, I continuously purport myself as a middle-class white girl in her twenties. What will I do when these are no longer true descriptors of myself? I am always able to chose representations of myself that make me look smarter, richer, wittier, blonder, and happier than my true self. On the Internet everything is a copy and I’m doing my part to be the best version of that “copy.”

Nakamura states that her research has shown that “when users are free to choose their own race, all were assumed to be white.” So not only are we falsely representing ourselves on the Internet, but we are falsely perceived.

Another interesting idea she has concerns the “targeted” web content available today. Although, there is more and more content out there that supports people from every subset of society, much of it is manipulated for commercial reasons. Nakamura notes of these specialized sites “view women and minorities primarily as potential markets for advertisers and merchants rather than as coalitions.” I have found, in my own experience, that this is absolutely true. When I worked as a Sales Rep for CBS Radio in Dallas, we would hold twice-weekly brainstorm sessions to come up with ways to put our clients in front of their desired demographic. This included creating websites dedicated to beauty tips and fun activities for “Women 25-34” to participate in simply so we could sponsor it by Cadillac. It’s amazing how much of what we are exposed to was creating for the sole purpose of getting us to buy something. And all this does is perpetuate our “cybertypes” because we continue to support it.

So, does one propose we have a Black Google? Do we give every race and gender specific web portals so we no longer assume everyone is a white male? Rushmore Drive was a search engine that was created as a destination for Black people. However, this concept proved to be a failure and it was shut down a year after it’s launch. Indeed, marketing content by race has proven to be more difficult than one might expect. Despite the existence of countless race-based social networking sites, none even remotely compare to the popularity of Facebook.

This fact has some bearing on the Foucault piece we read for this week: as the internet itself becomes more complicated and involved, the easy methods of dividing people up, categorizing them and controlling their online experience becomes more difficult. The truth is, a search engine for Black people sounds rather absurd today. Yet, I don’t know what the answer is for dealing with the question of race or gender in relation to the Internet. Do we assume everyone is a white male or do we force everyone to pigeonhole themselves within their own stereotype?