Category Archives: Research

Reading response 5- NaJin Lim

 In this chapter from Lovink’s book Networks Without A Cause, he outlines the dynamic shift in social interaction online in the move from Web 1.0 to 2.0 that relies on “user generated content”. What do you envision Web 3.0 to be and what is the next level of user empowerment?

Based on Lovink book Network without a cause, internet and social media interaction have been utilized in various aspects. However they also have created many problems such as “echo chamber” and diminishing access to information. Regarding such trends, i believe that uses of internet in people’s daily lives will decrease as 3.o begins. To expand, both problems mentioned above have arose mainly due to internet censorship. Degree of internet censorship is becoming higher as “geo-sensitive technology” is being in crisis for increasing global internet users. What it does is blocking users outside the country from watching public television online. Also, China exported national firewall technology to Sri Lanka to block certain offensive websites. Moreover, websites of public libraries block other citizens living in different regions for access. Such lack of information access and increasing copyright laws based on hostile attitudes toward users living in different areas will definitely decrease people’s reliance on web.

 

Throughout the article, Lovink argues for a form of criticism that is specific to the Internet—one that looks at theories about culture and society through the lens of networked technologies. Do you also believe that this is necessary to study as we move forward? Why or why not?

I strongly agree with Lovink’s argue about look at the theories about culture and society through the lens of networked technology. Now the internet is around us that we can live with out them or maybe it’s really hard for us to live with out it. Every information we found are in the internet and those sources are came out from internet, also people are so influenced from the internet. So I think studying culture and society through the lens is kind of out only option. Form this, it is better for people who are using the internet to understand and using properly rather than just doing it, because internet space can be a easy comfort place but sometimes, it can be very dangerous place. Sometimes, people who aren’t still familiar with the internet makes mistakes, but system and tool of the internet is getting easier to use (thanks to the engineers), so it’s not that complicated to know about the internet.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Response #5 – Steven Lourenco

The Wipers – Is This Real?

Looking forward, away from Web 2.0, we must ask ourselves. Is this real? The Wipers were asking it. Is it all a dream? There seemed to be this legitimate escape from the formalities and pesky social/political/geographic divisions imprinted by the material world. Young dreamers in the West were exploring uncharted territory, outside of their bodies and in the third eye. All the while, the money movers were looking on from the physical world, waiting for the proper moment to pounce on the technologies that were being fortified by the real adventurers. Mergers were made, the young were chained to their laptops, and as the efficiency and ease of social mediums and online marketplaces strengthened, the openness of Web 2.0 seemed become confined.

I experience the internet now as this shiny, chrome horse, flying through our neighbourhoods and homes and heads with flaming nostrils and thunderous hooves. It seems too perfect to go anywhere else. I can ride it freely with a saddle that seems custom-made. It’s so strong, clean, and perfectly outfitted to accommodate my desires. I feel like every button is there and every border and padding and hover colour, and underscore and favicon and logo is in it’s most pristine condition. I can present myself with the most ease and receive my “Likes” in a straight-forward, expected way. How could I feel any more welcome? How could I feel any more empowered?

chrome_Horse

“LIFE IS A HIGGGGGHWAYUYYYYY, I WANNNNAA RIIIDE IT…”

I feel like in an ideal world, the current advantages of our open-style format of ease of browsing and sharing; downloading and uploading; would stick around. However, I imagine this would almost happen immediately, with multiple actions occurring simultaneously. These thing are already happening with introductions of computing applications such as “The Cloud” (or “Fog). But  we still seem to have a sort of ownership over our content, that we are contributing to something and that we’re doing something meaningful. There seem to be invisible walls but like my phone can tell the ALL SEEING EYES where I am, and the people providing my service can drink up all my info with the most ease. So do I really have control over our content and the ways in which it is viewed by friends, family, strangers? The mere fact that something basically doesn’t belong to us once we upload, that it ends up on some server somewhere in a massive underground warehouse, is that not freaky? With all of the legislation that’s being put into place to control the internet; or the endless debates in “serious” political forums about the state of how much internet we get or what we get to use/see; or Ted Stevens; the power is being recognized. The power of it all and the power struggles therein have been manifested in our daily lives. The regular characters we allow to sort out all of our other shit, have recognized its power and are saddling that horse. I’m sitting with my friend who says: “Shit, they’re probably gonna talk about us using Facebook and like @fuckjerry’s Instagram in university lectures in the future.” And it’s gonna be this like weird pedestal. I don’t know if its gonna be called the Golden Era or the Dark Net Years or something, but this transitionary period will be remembered. We’re trying to wrangle this whole experience because we’ve been given so much so fast and we’re like: “whoa slow down”. Everything will probably get shinier and prettier, but it’ll all be held in a tight grip. I guess I would liken it to the legalization of weed, in a way. Even though its great that people will have access to the medical and other benefits of weed, the sameness and not to mention expense of regulation will take away the nuance, intrigue, adventure, and mythos.

(My browser is doing this thing where it won’t let me “right-click” and save a picture of Ted Stevens from GOOGLE, so just imagine a picture of Ted Stevens with a furrowed brow and mouth half open with a tag-line reading: “The internet is a series of tubes…”…….GOOGLE appeasing the overlords!)

What Lovink really gets into with the study of social and cultural climates in regards to our actions online is how we are often acting in response, in conflict, in juxtaposition, or parallel to the medium. We inundate the forums and chats and statuses with our opinions and I don’t think this is a new thing. I think this free-speech attitude comes with a willingness to understand, and through this understanding, sustain ourselves and survive. But where to we designate who is the authority on these issues. With mainstream media, we often see ourselves as the other; us v. them. But we’re kind of all mixed up here in this limbo, dancing around. Do we identify ourselves in relation to the free-ness of this whole thing? Are we evolving along a new strain somehow? As a culture, do we strengthen and prepare ourselves for a confrontation? Who is the internet? It is us right? If the artificial brain is smarter than a brain, are we at its whim? I don’t know if cultures can operate and grow with that sort of pressure. That’s a huge hinderance on our progress. We kind of exist in this setting where the environment is growing all around us and we’re so pleased by its appearance that we don’t really grow personally, we just acquire all of this baggage, and frankly, I don’t know what to do with any of it.

 

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

reading response 4 – NaJin Lim

Although this speech was given 25 years ago at the advent of the Internet, many of Postman’s concerns and insights around technology and the role of the computer in defining contemporary life ring true today. If you were to give a speech about the state of computer technology today that would be read by someone 25 years from now, what issues would you address and what predictions for the future would you make?

After reading Neil Postman’s “Informing Ourselves to Death” speech, I agree with the author Neil Postman. He made right points about the computer back in 1990’s, but today is 21 century which is 25 years later than “informing Ourselves to Death” speech was given. time has passed a lot and the technology and internet had been so updated, that we hardly  follow to update these new concept and system. There are lot’s of differences between now and then.

today, everyone connect with SNS and sees the world in the internet system. It’s now a way of life style and almost like a trend, like everyone around us is doing Facebook or instagrams, and you don’t even know why you made the account. It’s just happens and we don’t even know why we are doing it or what is the benefit of it. Also same as the information we can find in the internet, there are too much informations in the internet and it is super easy to get information of what we want. This can be a positive thing, but I think it’s more to the negative side. because the information could have been wrong and what they believe from that information, it maybe can mind control the people. For example, if the famous newspaper company says wrong things about something very negative, people will obviously believe about that, because it’s a famous well-known company. But we don’t even know it’s actually real or maybe or only exist in that article. Also another thought I thought while I was reading this speech, the information became too light now, meaning that everyone can write about something and easy spread to the public and it’s also easy for everyone to read about it. What I think is that there should be a limits or certain line to write something about it and giving it to public. To the winner of these technology, they will end up with a lot of informations and knowledge but they don’t even know it is actually a right and real. It will make their life easy and can fulfill them but at some point, it possibly can effect them negatively. For the losers, it will hard to gather informations compare to the winner of the technology, but sometimes it’s good with how the old way works.

It’s pretty amazing how Postman made this point in the speech 25 years ago, even the technology and the internet was’t that big compare to now. Maybe people in nowadays aren’t really thinking and care about it, doesn’t really realize. What I think of this technology and the internet is that now, it’s actually hard to find the privacy and our informations are out there too easy and people aren’t really aware of that danger. Media and the technology are keep developing so fast still and we can’t predict about it anymore, because as new concept and ideas are coming out, people starts to develop newer and better things are actually making it to reality which tells that now we have the technology to built most of things that is in our minds. It will keep develop and someday, it will divided in to two section of winner and loser of the technology. Also from this too much informations and writings, these will become more subjective evaluation rather than a fact.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Blog Response 5 Colin Rosati

Web 3.0 will have fully immersive centralized social media platform that opens the users desktop, local file library apps like ITUNES as well as Pinterest, Tumblr, Intsagram, Twittr, StumbleUpon and Spotify to be connected with your peers. These application will have privacy settings, to allow anonymity and integration but those will still lack security. I believe social media will also have separate threads that are more like a database or access to a public server of content. With the all the information overwhelming Google there will be decentralized databases of information that are more biased made by individuals & groups correcting each other. The user will be able to search things and objectivity will no longer exist, except up to the test of a small group of people that could like, verify or add folklore annotations (non-objective ideas that ppl share)

There will be more content than every and the media streams will be easier to tap into and stay locked. Netflix, Youtube will be escalated and the walls of the mazes will be harder and higher to navigate. The masses of web 3.0 users will be apathetic and able to become increasingly escapist into a media landscape. The creativity of the mass web 3.0 users will be still at the hands of corporations who give you Instagram, Tumblr and Pinterest where you can curate content but in a standardized form. Although the limitation of the web will be more evidently not attached to the screen, holograms and augmented reality of Pinterest interior decoration is not critically creative. These users will be well curated aestheticized indiviualists that lack critical creativity that reflect society. There will be entertainment artist that blur the immersive boundaries of art like CGI artists working with Oculus.

In Web 3.0 the open source movement will still be a major creative driving force behind information, media and applications that will hopefully be means to navigate media mazes. I wonder if Marshal McLuhan’s medium is the message stand up against Web 3.0- is augmented realities, instantaneous media, penetrating networks the message?

 

I agree with Lovnik with the specialized field of internet criticism. The internet is shaping us and changing our dailey habits. I believe it is important to explore and criticize those changes as well as debunk myths and biased social effects of the internet. I believe there should be a field of criticism for many any field that studies human behaviour- net-pyschology, net-sociology, net-archeology, net- personal and business advisor, net-councilor, net-anonymous, net-exorcist, net-guru, net-mother, net-moral leaders, net-unions… these are silly but my point is these fields should study these effects as a major historical development as well as have specified net analysts.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Nora Mahdi/ blog post/ 5

  1. The Internet has integrated seamlessly in our every day lives. Most people see it as a better way of living and enhancing life. Technology has certainly been changing rapidly and the Internet is always changing which is becoming harder to keep up with. So many changes occurred with the rise of the Internet, changes in style, design and mainly social interactions. It’s definitely hard to imagine exactly what the future of Web 3.0 will turn out to be but it’s not impossible. Some suggest that we have already achieved it but others believe we are only starting to create it. It’s not hard to use our imagination, especially with today’s mindset of the future created by recent movies. Many people believe that the Internet will develop even faster than it has already, and will include higher sematic, virtual and artificial intelligence. Many movies like Her predict that the Internet will form into a cyborg robot that will preform 10x better than computers, it seems that that is the mentality people have of the future. A world run by machines.
  1. I certainly believe that we should be able to study theories about culture and society through the lens of networked technologies, especially since our lives revolve around technologies and communicating through them. It is crucial for people to understand the essence and roots of these technologies before even using them, in order to accurately function.

HER

qb4q4buwytfplshzbyux

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Blog Response 5 – Laura Rojas

1. In this chapter from Lovink’s book Networks Without A Cause, he outlines the dynamic shift in social interaction online in the move from Web 1.0 to 2.0 that relies on “user generated content”. What do you envision Web 3.0 to be and what is the next level of user empowerment?

It’s hard to imagine a new form of Web, particularly because technological changes occur so rapidly that we hardly have time to get used to one standard when another one is already in place. I think once we get to “Web 3.0” territory, we won’t even recognize it as being any different from Web 2.0 until we step back and really analyze how far we’ve come.

That being said, I envision it to be moving faster than it already does. It will probably include high amounts of wearable tech integrating with the online world in order to make our lives the simplest, most convenient possible (because that’s what it’s all about, right?). Web 3.0 may not be as drastic as the lifestyle shown on Pixar’s Wall-E, but something close I think is definitely possible. My guess is future technology will be more immersive than ever, keeping us glued to our devices and perpetually online.

2. Throughout the article, Lovink argues for a form of criticism that is specific to the Internet—one that looks at theories about culture and society through the lens of networked technologies. Do you also believe that this is necessary to study as we move forward? Why or why not?

 I definitely think that studying the effect of networked technologies on society and culture, along with the latter through the former, is something important and necessary to do. Culture is heavily impacted by technology and society constantly shifts around within it like we discussed in class earlier. Our language, our preferences, our style and hobbies – all of these things are influenced by online content. The amount of influences we have is overwhelming: every webpage we visit shows us content from around the world, adding to the stockpile of viewed content we carry around in our brains.

In her book Dark Age Ahead, Jane Jacobs, a writer and activist who focused on the impact of urbanization, talks about the loss of intimate community that comes from living in big cities and the subsequent cultural hubs that arise out of this need. I think technology is having very similar effects on our society- new, digital communities are born from the lack of real, human contact in order to supplement these interactions to an extent. It’s really important that we keep these dialogs open and active in order to form a critical perspective within everyone who uses networked technologies in the hopes of forming critical citizens and nourishing a global culture which doesn’t let itself get taken over by these things, but rather uses them wisely, carefully.

 

 

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response 5- Sophia Oppel

1. I think the future generations of the web will continue to involve an increasing proportion of user generated and designed content, where web layout and personalization becomes increasingly prevalent. I am envisioning a user designed feed that is personalized to a number of specific pieces of news- like facebook but from multiple different sites- almost like the failed attempt of Google Wave. I do no think this would be particularly empowering for a user, but I believe it would give the illusion of empowerment, speed and efficiency which many people take pride in their technology for. I would also imagine Web technology to become increasingly small until it can be embedded in our brains and viewed subconsciously, allowing for more efficient corporate profiling and a constant barrage of stimulus. M.T. Anderson forecasted this idea in his novel Feed.  

I can also imagine a more immersive web experience; rather than the two dimensional navigation that most websites take, I would predict an integration of a z-index or webspace depth perception, kind of like a videogame. This will serve to further replace physicality, and might begin to account for directional movement as a representation of temporal movement (moving farther back in a feed to older content by moving further into the z-index). This would create a further fusion of time and space. Seeing as our social media personas are already content holders in the global market, I can imagine this moving a step forward so that many people are broadcasting a live stream of their physical lives for constant virtual surveillance and approval.

Screen Shot 2015-06-16 at 7.39.20 PMI would imagine that web services such as online shopping or online medical information will become more interactive, so that a digital facimilie or scan of every human body will exist online. This will be able to accurately try on clothes and get a physical doctors check-up; this digital self could be complete with all the bodily maladies the physical person has, to allow for a useful prognosis.

H&M actually allows an online customizable fitting room in some countries on their online site, but so far it has not really taken off anywhere else.

While some of these ideas may prove useful to users, their implications are potentially worrisome in the further fragmentation of a sense of physical self.

2. On page 23, Lovnik writes: “We need a contemporary network theory that reflects rapid changes and takes the critical and cultural dimensions of technical media seriously…We cannot merely study potentiality and growth patterns as pseudo-natural phenomena.” I think this implies that notions of networked technology are either taken lightly; as nothing more then empty entertainment, or factually; analyzed scientifically and statistically. I would agree that networked practices are now embedded in human culture, and it is necessary to implement an anthropological and theoretical study of the effects of this culture.

I think that exploration into new media and pop culture is often written off as a frivolity or a “hip” trend, as is mainstream entertainment; something meaningless and unworthy of further examination. However, I think all of these things become indexical artifacts of human culture, supporting just as much valuable critical content as a heavy three volume novel when examined closely. I think that what human beings are doing in their leisure hours is very telling of the culture in general, and should be further considered.

Seeing as technology has its own language, syntaxical set of associations, intervention into human interaction and aesthetics, it seems only logical to have a specialized strain of theory that goes into studying the ramifications of these cultural signifiers. It is important that humans employ self-aware usage of networked devices, and possess the vocabulary and ability to analyze the infrastructure and aesthetic decisions being made to frame their user experience. Without some form of educational theory, it will be difficult for the common user to knowledgably position themselves within mediated interaction and understand the corporate politics that underlie many large websites and technologies.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Reading Response #4 (Steven Lourenco)

Viet Cong – Newspaper Spoons

 

So, after reading Neil Postman’s 1990 speech Informing Ourselves to Death, I feel that I agree with the gentleman. It is disheartening to hear that we as a collective “people” (whether that be a physical population or as a sort of nametag for the current and coming generations) have essentially continued our human-made path toward “enlightenment”.  Yet our movement remains in crawl-mode and the path is arid. When Postman references greats like Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Thoreau, and Pogo the possum, he highlights that self-knowledge can only come from the tranquility of life, the accepting of our nature.

pogo_himself

You said it, Pogo

To paint a picture, Postman stood in front of hundreds if not a couple thousand people who exist in a realm of playing that God-Author role, producing and relying on their tools derived from the digital world, and he referenced religious figure-heads to indicate the severity of the situation. That we are becoming enveloped in things that we whole-heartedly believe will change our lives and will improve the world for generations to come. But Postman wishes to indicate that we are becoming completely occupied with the tools that are said to be geared toward enlightenment and this is the crux of the issue (and his speech). Our acceptance and even expectation of the efficiency of and straight up, just the presence of said technologies in our lives has almost solidified our reliance on them.

computer-gif-41

*drools* Love you so much, baby *drools*

If I had to confront a convention full of robotics specialists, engineers, programmers, technicians (and others) with the same message, I would hope to have the emotional gravitas and arsenal of prose as Postman. He really appealed to a sort of human guilt. If it wasn’t there before, he certainly managed to implant it. I think that at the pit of the whole idea, we have humans who really do want the best for themselves, families, friends, communities, and the world (it may dwindle incrementally but its a nice thought). We use organic and human-made tools to make our lives easier and our digital technologies are simply an extension of that effort. But I think that because there is so much of us in these tools, we root for them to the -nth degree. We whole-heartedly believe that these inventions are going to save us all from all of our illnesses and downfalls. But the system itself is just as sick because we have our little hands in it. Some would call them distractions or addictions, and because the technology is constantly responding to our actions and informing ours simultaneously, perhaps they are. We need it just as much as it needs us.

I think if I were to write a speech about computer technology today, for someone to read down the arid road, I’d probably start with how our necks are fucked. “There is this new stance called the hang-man, where you hold your phone at your waist, arm holding phone glued tightly to your side, and your curl your neck forward at precisely 90 degrees to look down at it.”

…I wouldn’t start with that but would maybe touch on it. Yes, the physical effect our devices and tools have on us is certainly noticeable. Our lack of eye-contact, our-stopping-the-middle-of-the-god-damned-street-to-text-back, our selfie-stance (hand-outstretched in front of body, phone facing back)…the list goes on but this is on facet of how the technology has manipulated the human body, and even determines the physicality of settings and locations. By this I mean to say that physical streets, cafes, malls, parks (!), homes etc. have become more notable only in relation to their wi-fi for example. For another example, there is this feeling that I get specifically now that I am living on my own, that pertains to the presence of cable and/or wi-fi. I don’t watch tv, I occasionally use Netflix, but Im not on there too much (this isn’t the addiction talking, I mean it). But I use alot of wi-fi, I’m practically on it at all times unless I’m out or at work and sometimes, when I go places that don’t have it…….I get anxious, slightly depressed, uncomfortable. This is kind of embarrassing. but I have this feeling I’m not the only one. I think it comes from this widespread idea that our technology represents our sophistication, our pure and steadfast advancement. And I think that is what I would have to say. I would tell stories of people slipping off cliffs for not looking behind them during selfies and about bullies who brought their hate to Facebook to incite thoughts of suicide and people losing entire financial stability because of Stoner666_Fuck. And maybe now after saying that, maybe its a whole other conversation. Through our addiction to all this funky newness, we will eventually just step into the technology and become a part of it. Insert 80’s techno-adventure joke here.

'.__('Continued reading >', 'simplr').'')*/ ?>

Use of this service is governed by the IT Acceptable Use and Web Technologies policies.
Privacy Notice: It is possible for your name, e-mail address, and/or student/staff/faculty UserID to be publicly revealed if you choose to use OCAD University Blogs.