Anthony Su- Week 10 Blog Post
I am going to give some personal opinion to our reading this week and the movie we watched earlier in class today.
[First, I want to discuss some views I have on last week's Smart Mobs though. - it is kind of related to this week (Networks, Interface Design, and Software Studies)
Smart Mobs, by Howard Reingold, was really intriguing. I did not even know what a Smart Mob was before I read this chapter of his novel, so the book really got me to know more about technological reality. Smart Mobs are essentially a huge group of people formed through the use of technology, particularly through the use of cell phones. They are ideologically charged, or else they would not be so strongly united. Reingold makes some plausible points about how Filipino president Joseph Estrada lost power because of a Smart Mob and the Battle of Seattle was also affected. These are realities of life; they are true events that happened. The fact that short message service (SMS) is relatively cheap compared to telephone voice calls also makes the thought of Smart Mobs possible almost anywhere. (With exceptions such as parts of Africa and the Middle East). However, what I find controversial is Reingold's argument that he briefly stated about Smart Mobs using non-violent tactics to get what they want. Smart Mobs are supposed to be a big group of people. They are intimidating. This provokes violence. I am pretty sure that Estrada was terrified when a million of Filipino citizens took him down from power. Sure, previous examples of Mobs, such as France's Fronde, may have been more violent, but Smart Mobs are very aggressive too. (As a side note, there are also examples of peaceful revolutions in the past, such as England's Glorious Revolution in 1686.) What differs between the Mobs of the past and the Smart Mobs modernly should be how they united initially, not how they are united or how ideologically charged they are. Smart Mobs use cell phones, the Mobs of the past did not. However, the way they confront the problem when they are united essentially is the same. The "fact" that Smart Mobs are non-violent should be reconsidered. Smart Mobs may just be a slight outgrowth of past Mobs because of the violence both types use, not something entirely different.]
OK, that was probably a bit long and is not the focus of this blog post. The reading from this week is the focus of my blog post: (note: I want to touch on the two readings this week and the movie we watched earlier today).
I admit that Alexander Galloway's The Exploit was difficult to understand. I will make a comment on the work though. In the introduction, Galloway stating that networks are not liberating is quite controversial. He argues that networks are not liberating because they are not easy to understand for many people. This seems plausible, but I believe that the type of network plays a big role in how liberating a network really is. For example, centralized network is not so liberating because one has to cross by the "center", which could be the government or some type of other authoritative figure, in order to contact someone else. The thought of needing to confront authority for access may deter someone from reaching another. Centralized networks are not liberating. Secondly, decentralized are not as extreme; liberating to some extent. There are some people you may contact without passing through the center, but there are some people who are only accessible in passing through the center. Finally, distributed networks are the most liberating. There is no such thing as the "center" in this type of network. Some people may have more access than others to other people, but distributed networks certainly make connections possible and thus are most liberating. It is just a generalization to say that networks are not liberating in general. (However, we do have some cases, like the Patriot Act, that serve to limit our liberty and freedom through the use of networks.) Overall, though, I am in accord with many of Galloway's points about America's unilateralism and unique standing among the world.
One strong thought I had about Matthew Fuller's work was about Google's dominance. I believe that Google dominance is a trend. This can be proven by many terms we hear in society ("Google it", "Look it up on Google", "Gmail", "Youtube"). Before Google's dominance, our society was certainly different. I remember many people even just four or five years before discussing teeoma.com (ask.com) and alltheweb.com. very frequently. I remember that alltheweb.com used to have some special features, such as video searches, that other search engines did not have. However, after checking back on that site a few years later, I found that many special search features were gone. The only search options in that site are now "web, news, pictures". It seems like the site got abandoned because of google, which is pretty sad to see. That brings me to think about another point. Are we moving towards technological monopoly? Many of us do use the same technological products, such as Microsoft Word, and Google. As how I see it, I believe that technology will be more and more unified under few creators. If there are standards of technology, all of society will be inclined to use it. Take for example, the format of a typed English paper. It is standard. Most people will not want to a program other than Microsoft Word or its equivalence of Macintosh computers because they are skeptical that other programs will not be able to produce the standard, or right, format.
Now, I just want to bring up a point about technology in the movie "Voices of a Distant Star". I agree that the movie certainly showed the limitations of technology, but I wonder what is the limit of technology? Can technology make something, like a message, travel faster than the speed of light? I actually find that the speed of light is a crucial threshold and I find it particularly relevant to the movie because it constantly mentioned "so and so light years away". I believe that once technology creates something that can travel faster than the speed of light (if possible), then our human race may indeed be prefect. We can also find intelligent life elsewhere and have the potential to meet it face to face. Or us the intelligent life elsewhere making quicker progress than us and will meet us unexpectedly? Technology can seem scary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Anthony: I'm glad you had such interesting reflections on such a large number of the readings, but don't feel that you need to address all of them.
ReplyDeleteI like the distinction you tried to make in the following statement:
"What differs between the Mobs of the past and the Smart Mobs modernly should be how they united initially, not how they are united or how ideologically charged they are."
Though it's a little unclear what you mean by "how they are united" vs. "how they united initially," I agree that the focus is more on how these crowds assemble rather than their behavior after that point (though Rheingold mentions some attempts at intramob communication).