"Has led to" and "Inevitablility"

I found the Williams reading very interesting, especially together with the Nardi/O’Day chapter from earlier this month about inevitability.

Both readings have made me really stop and consider how I think, not only about technology but about everything. The discussion of "inevitability" in the Nardi/O'Day reading, which I discussed earlier on my blog, made me realize how often I have heard people use that phrase in relation to technology.

This reading made me stop and look at how often people say that technology has "led to" a change or that it has had "effected" society. I'm guilty of it too. The comparison of the various statements on page 11 especially brought to the forefront how familiar these phrases are, and how insufficient.

After reading, I thought about how I always thought that new technologies like the internet, broadband, social networks, had all "changed" society and how it works. It is true that society has changed, but as Williams said, you have to think whether the technology brought about a change or whether the change brought about the technology. I think this is the case with the internet - it was developed for a specific need, first with DARPA and then with universities. Out of that it developed into a wider social tool. Websites like facebook and myspace have "changed" how we keep in touch with each other, but really they are responses to the already changing technology and communication systems in place.

Then again, I don't think it's fair to rule out technology changing society as well. It may be true that sites like facebook and myspace were responses to the way people used technology to communicate, but they also exacerbate these ways of communication to the point that people's communication and social skills both adapt and evolve into these new methods and no longer are as suitable for other methods of communication. The same can be said of the inevitability of these systems coming about, as I discussed in the past blog entry.


Together, the two articles have made me look around with fresh eyes, and I plan to keep this in mind in the future when looking at news and new technologies.

ideology

Post a definition of ideology and a short discussion of how you see ideology at work around you.

"Ideology is a term developed in the Marxist tradition to talk about how cultures are structured in ways that enable the group holding power to have the maximum control with the minimum of conflict."

(Find notes from last class. write more about how it functions and what it is.)

We can see ideology at work all around us, most often in teh context of political party platforms and ideals, but we can also see it in smaller places.

Within online media, there are a number of different ideologies. One says that you should conserve your property, and if you allow it to be obtained freely you are giving away a large part of your income. Another says that it is inevitable (that word!) to have tv shows, movies, and music get online for "free" (illegally), and they try to *shape* how it is being obtained rather than prevent it from happening. Companies like Disney/ABC offer their entire season of shows online to be watched for free on their website. This way they can still sell ads and control the distribution of it.

On the other extreme is the RIAA, working with/on behalf of the record industry. They are almost comically fanatical about trying to stop music trading. Even though they have (in a questionably legal way) strong armed money out of a number of poor students, they haven't had much success in stopping online music trading. Instead of trying to stop the -- not quite "inevitable," since it's already happened. It is like they are standing trying to plug a dam that has a ten foot wide hole in it by dropping bubble gum into the water flowing away. Instead, they should be trying to embrace the change and shape the direction the technology goes, so that they can find a way to benefit from the release or trade of free music in a legal way.

babble babble (techology is a good thing, "inevitability" is a bad thing)

I think the chapters in the Information Ecologies book was interesting. I agree that more people should join the debate about technology and where it is headed, instead of finding it inevitable, even if they don't know all the issues. If they don't make an effort, they will never learn enough to be a real participant.

The authors complain about how the two extremes, the technophiles and technophobes (dystopians), take the lead in the debates. I think this is normal and can be seen in debate in all topics, not just technology. The extremes have the most vehement opinions, and often are more well read up on the issues they feel so strongly about.

I would say that there is definitely a disconnect generated by online relationships, and this can be seen from both the side of the techophile and the technophobe. My friends and I have blogs, and we keep in touch that way. Through blogs, and to a lesser extent, facebook, I can keep up to date with people without ever talking to them. When my mom asks, "How is Cameron doing these days?" I can tell her that she spent a semester in France and loved it, and that she's now back in the DC area finishing up her last couple of semesters. All this, even though I haven't spoken to Cameron directly beyond a couple of comments on her blog in the past three years.

As portrayed in the video clip, social networking online can be seen as inevitable, when really it has been created by people. Looking back, it is easy to say that a network like this would become widely used. I don't think it was entirely inevitable. It is not inevitable that a project like Wikipedia would appear either - it took massive organization of a group of people with a vision to set it up and have enough passion to keep it going.

====

Describe how you can change how techology is being used: (How can *you* influence?)

Roadshow. encourages others to interact with techology more often.
I think at home I can influence how techology is used by encouraging my parents/siblings to understand the techologies they use better. I think it would be interesting to try to influence how techology is used in classes, at least my classes, at CMU. I love the internet, and I love having computers around, but it is true that they encourage people to not pay attention. Synchron-eyes doesn't work. Clearly something else is needed. This isn't really what they want us to look at.