The Interweb

Here is my beloved final project. Please enjoy- it really is a lot of fun.

http://pages.pomona.edu/~arl02004/ms149project/interweb.htm

To Live, To Blog, No More.

This is my final entry. At this entry, I fall short of the required blog post amount of 26 by two posts. This should constitute a failure, but rather I have construed this as a great success. Blogging was easily the most difficult assignment of all my classes this semester. I think I actually spent more time fretting about behind my sorry self was in posting than actually doing any of the things that I was supposed to be doing.
With that said, I think Prof. Fitzpatrick and I had very different ideas of what I was “supposed to be doing” with my blog.
I am now going to asses my performance using both my own and the sylabus’ outline for the blogging experience:
My Standards:
1)Think about the readings and write about them
1)PASS. I definitely used all of my blog post to connect with our readings and think in very specific ways on my course readings. I got to flesh out my ideas much better than I would ever have in class. I could type a page and get into the specifics of something that, had I done in class, would have been a bit excessive. I thought my blogs where well written and a good inquiry and explication of the readings.
2)Blog twice a week instead of turning in reading responses
2) FATTY FAIL. My life fell apart this semester. I went a month without blogging and then had to write 3 a week to try an catch up. I was continually behind and inconsistent. This caused me to get even more stressed out about the assignment. It was hard to think about blogging as a replacement to a 1 page reading response when it seemed so informal and unimportant. I started behind, and though I tried with all my might to catch up, I ended behind.
3)Get interesting feedback from people on my blogged ideas, and do the same for others
3) FATTY FAIL.I think I got a total of 4 comments during the semster.(Which I was told was a lot of comments comparred to my classmates) That is hardly substantial feedback. A couple were susbstantive and interesting, but most were only tangentially related or a "i agree" comment. I'm not sure if it was bitterness or desire to make sure everyone could see my posts (which wasn't the case if I posted a response) I only responded to one person's post. Even then, it was indirectly because I just refrenced their posted article, rather than posting a comment. I just didn't feel compelled to type responses to blogs.
4)Do things on blogging that couldn’t happen better in class
4)FAIL.Nope. At the end of the semster, I still much prefered to talk to my classmates in person and hear what everybody had to say in person. I think the blogs should have been a special place where people who don't speak up in class have an opportunity to speak...but at the end of the day, the volume of posts (when people whre still keeping up) was too overwhelming to read everything. I didn't know who was who, and the posts started to get really repetitive. There was one on "I hate Memmot" and another on "I despise Memmot" and perhaps a third on "Memmot, go to hell". I didn't want to read the different reasons why, and had we had this conversation in class, one person would have said it and everyone would have nodded emphatically (and maybe thrown in a couple of other reasons for the hate). The blog was so not necesary for this. On the other hand, I was able to go into depth on a tangential point in a blog post that would have been inappropriate to spend class time on. Then again, we did get tangential quite often...anyways, I felt that class time derved my interests and mind much more than blog time.
And the course standards:
Which I should've read much more carefully, I'll admit.)
1)“focus and explore your developing ideas new media”
1)PASS. Much like my first standard, I feel that I did this well and developed my ideas in media studies.
2)“…and in particular, your term project”
2)SOFT FAIL. My continuing frustrations (which were the theme of many a post) with the lack of a map in many of our New Media readings/lessons were the inspiration for my final project, but were not me talking about my final project by any means.
3)“keep up-to-date on your fellow students’ blogs”
3) FAIL. I stopped seriously reading the aggregator a long time ago. People's posts were getting...how do I say politely...a bit, fluffy. I would scroll through the agregator and look at a title that caught my eye, but certainly looked forward more to what people would say in class, rather than their blog posts. People are funny in class, but get super boring in their blogs. Where's the passion? Wher's the zest for life? I have often asked myself these questions while scrolling through the monotonous aggregator.
4)“comment frequently on their posts”
4) FATTY FAIL. Again, reasons above.
All in all, this was a thoughouly upsetting and uninspiring experience. I didn't make of it what I could have, but then again, I was so busy trying to get to the baseline standards that I often missed the more involved parts of the blogging process. I think structuring the blogging assignment differently will yeild much better posts. Also, working it more into our class time and refining the way those 2 spaces interact would also be helpful.
I am happy to put this blog to rest, but strangely enough, I have become obsessed with Planned Obsolescence. Who would have thought....

Those Final Projects

I just wanted to send a shout out to all my fine classmates for your work on those final projects. I had a good time watching and thinking about the projects. I laughed. I cried. I was scared of totaling the amount of hours put into to making stupid Dreamweaver work.
In all honesty, that was the most interesting exercise we had done all semester. It was awesome to see how everyone took the themes we had talked about and put them into action. I almost wish we could have had a couple of smaller presentations so that we could see how people were interacting with the texts all semester.
I look forward to playing with everybody’s sites even after the class is over. Wow. Never thought I’d say that.
A job very well done everybody.

Advertising Everywhere

I wanted to throwback really quickly to a passage of Connected...
“Jeff Noon writes of ‘Blurbflies,’ artificial insects whose buzzing songs transmit advertising messages. When such insect messengers come calling, you cannot choose to respond. You may swat or shoo away a single fly, but more of them will always show up. The media-sphere is the only ‘nature’ we know, and unwanted messages, like insect pests, are crucial to its ecology’”(23)

Over the semester, I’ve been thinking about advertising, especially on the internet, but in other places as well. This Connected quote was a nice echo of a dread that has been growing in me, mainly, that advertising is going to continue to grow more and more invasive, and we as those who “consume” have no way to stop this growing frenzy.

I have had 3 particular moments where I felt completely assaulted by media and advertising

1. In my blog.
Ironically enough, my first posted response to my blog was a junk-mail post which read, “I thought your blog was pretty cool. I think you’ll like this as well” followed by a link to a casino site. I didn’t know that people could spam a blog, so I followed the link and sadly found myself at the casino site. My head dropped in shame and anguish. I wanted so badly to have one of my peers to care, to comment, for us to connect. Instead a casino-site link by someone who really could care less.

2. In a bathroom stall.
This is the one part of the day when no one bugs me, nobody contacts me and nobody want anything. I sit down on the porcelain thrown to find 3 flyers about different events on campus. I felt used. In my most private, solitary moment, people still felt compelled to advertise to me. Pitiful.

3. At the Beach.
So I am at the beautiful Huntington beach. The water is cool. There’s a light breeze, and there is not a cloud in the big blue sky. I am enjoying nature and its amazingness, taking in the view when all of a sudden, LIVE IT LIKE YOU MEAN IT. BACARDI., rips up the flawless skyscape. A plane was flying with giant banner behind it. This obnoxious tactic continued all day, telling me to drink Miller beer, use Vaseline Cooling Lotion and a variety of other products. People go to “nature” to get away from all the advertising and frenzy of everyday life. It is beyond offensive that advertisers sullied this sacred space with they’re ‘oh so important’ advertising.

These are 3 examples of when I have felt violated by advertising, where it crossed the line between expected annoyingness to offensive breach of personal space. But my greater wonder is, What do they think is going to happen by crossing these lines? Do they really think people are going to buy their products because they advertised them in a place where few others dare go? If anything, I am more likely NOT to buy the products, because they have offended me so. When I got sun-burnt at the beach, I purposely skipped over the Vaseline brand cooling lotion. I hate pop-up so much, that I vowed never to buy anything (or even look at anything) that came in pop-up format. Where, then, is the upside of advertising in my sacred space? Is more really better in the case of saturation? As the Connected quote suggests, we reach a point where we are so inundated, everywhere, that we ignore everything advertised. The advertising ceases to be effective, so why do they keep making more?

My other concern is that of agency and response. There is no way to say “No”. As long as they pay someone, advertisers can advertise, legally and protected, almost anywhere. Basically, I worry about the implications of having no direct way to get advertising out of my space, or out the public space where it doesn’t belong.

Tag-erific?

I'm a slightly above average internet user.
I have an advantage, because I grew up using the internet, so I pick up quickly, but overall, I'm not going to spend time on the internet above and beyond the time it takes to accomplish the tasks at hand unless you give me a really engrossing reason.
The literature about tags what fairly uninteresting to me. I thought it was a nice concept, but beyond that, I didn't really care to use it myself. I'm blaming this on several things:

1. Tags are more work
I could care less if anyone found my blog and wanted to read it. (Actually, that’s not true, I care a little bit, but not a lot). There was a lot of directions involved for making tag, and quite frankly, I don’t want to mess with code and html unless I know it’s going to be fruitful. From the sound of the articles, tagging a site well requires a plethora of base tags and then more tags which are synonyms or singular/plural of the original tag. This seems like a lot of work, just to have other people be able to find a site. I know this is useful, so I’m not going to discount it completely, but for my run-of-the-mill internet use, it’s not happening.

2. I don’t have time
Tags are for people who have time to browse, sift around, poke here and there until they find the leaf or leaves of interest in the leaf pile. I don’t have time. Trees are much more conducive to finding what I want quickly and efficiently. Trees may not give me everything, but they do give me something almost immediately.

When I do want to browse, I use a facet system, such as Amazon.com. I know that I’ll at least get the right genre of product when I click on a category (unlike tags). From there, I can specify by facet information what I want to look through. Even though I’m browsing, facet system makes this process fairly concise and well reasoned. As several of the articles said, it matters that these are administratively designed organizational structures, whereas tagging is done my regular ‘folks’. I just find that tree structures and facet structures help me find what I want without the hassle that tags would give. I won’t say tags aren't useful or even superb, but it looks to me like the technology needs to be sharpened a lot more before they are a really effective tool. Tags are for people with time.

3. Incentive?
Tags really do seem like a “and then some” category for most sites. Its nice that someone did it, but it’s not necessary. I see how tagging could be adding to the greater good of the people, but I didn’t read any particular reason why I should feel compelled to tag my sites. Where’s the incentive?

As always, if I missed something or completely had a mental drop which would destroy my argument, I’m open to comments or responses.

We Certainly Do Like Ourselves.

Mathers’ article "Folksonomies" referenced the fact that on Flckr the tags "cute" and "me" come up a lot, displaying our narcissism and ego. I was thinking about this a bit after I rolled my eyes and thought about people thinking they were awesome and noteworthy, and dare I say, original, when in fact they are like everyone else. Then I was thinking about how the internet can really grow by leaps and bounds on the grounds of people thinking other random people care about them in some way.

Realize that I’m not referring to posting information that people you know can access. That is a different sort of internet use.

Photo sharing is an obvious example of this phenomenon. Everybody is familiar of the links people send out of their grandchildren….with 50 different angles of the same rather blue-ish tinted baby asleep covered to the head in baby pink pajamas. Aren’t they adorable? It gets us back to the fact that because its so simple to end something like this out to 100 people, somebody feels compelled to do it. Whereas sending those pictures out, all 50 million copies by snail mail is hardly worth the pay off, the internet makes it possible.

I’m of course factoring in my inherent dislike of people and my tendencies to be snobbish about what is and isn’t significant information that should be mass emailed, but realize also that I spend the better part of each day riding my inbox of “thought this was interesting…” 12 page articles and “sweet pics ” pictures of Italy that someone randomly sends me because I’ve been to Italy. Yea, I’m biased, but with good reason.

The Facebook is another example. People put up all of this information, because ostensibly someone will care, and then that someone and you will be friends. This is a strange concept to me. You aren’t really friends, you just have something in common. I suppose you could become actual friends, but I think most people stop after they’ve pushed the friend button and posted on someone’s wall once. Lasting friendships are not built on the Facebook.com. Just my opinion though, feel free to argue.

On a bigger scope, I worry that this sort of acquaintanceship adds to the post-modern condition of fracture. I may read to much into this, but I think that spending time making acquaintances on the Facebook means that you aren’t spending time talking to real people and searching out real live people who are doing the same things as you. This seems to lead too easily to apathy and a general disengagement with real life community.

The greater question I’m getting at here is, what does it mean to put your information, life out on the internet/public? And more importantly, What will you gain out of this?

What's Up with the Question Marks?

What's up with question marks appearing in place of apostrophes in some of the articles we read online?
I tried switching browsers and it still happened, so I guess it's not just one place or browser.

There are two issues this of quandary brings up:

1. How do you get questions answered about the internet?

and

2.Why does something little like that bother me so much?

First tings first. I identified this as a problem, then had nowhere to go with it for an answer. This is very common with the internet. I find that questions such as, “Why won’t this work properly?”, “How does this feature work?” or “How does this Windows feature of the browser work on a Mac?” are often questions that are unanswerable. This is something very unique to the internet—there is no owner, so there is no one to hold accountable or address questions to. In some cases, I suppose one could ask the software creator/company, but that seems a bit silly. I personally don’t want to wade through and internet help site or wait on hold knowing that my question may not be significant enough to answer. Don’t even get me started of the ridiculousness of internet help sites. It is soooo frustrating to want to talk to a human and be continually pushed back into the realm of “find it yourself with our easy FAQ site”.

Second, this stupid little detail of question marks replacing apostrophes threw my entire reading off. What gives? It’s a tiny little stroke of a difference, and yet, I stopped EVERY SINGLE TIME and looked confused at the screen until I figured out that, yet again, it was not a fragment ending with a question mark, but supposed to be an apostrophe. It just reminds me how strong the coding of the alphabet is on my mind. Yet, I know there are studies which show that you can misspell lots of word in a row, and the mind will barely register that there has been mistakes. I wonder why there is inconsistency between letters and symbols? Or maybe I’m just dense…

Not the most profound post ever, but had to get it out.

If anybody, by the way could answer my question about the apostrophe question marks, you would prove the utopian community and collaborative ideals of the internet. Just a bit of incentive.

Even those primitive people can use them

I wanted to share a quote from the "BBC article UN Debut for 100$ Laptop" that somebody linked to in their blog:
"Studies have shown that kids take up computers much more easily in the comfort of warm, well-lit rich country living rooms, but also in the slums and remote areas all around the developing world."
WHaaaaaATTTTTT!!!
I almost gagged myself reading this. Who says that sort of thing?!
What kind of studies were they running, I wonder. This sort of anthropological garbage makes me want to rip my eyeballs out and chew on them. You cannot run a study and conclude that ability to use a computer well boils down to a well lit room. That is beyond offensive. I can hardly believe somebody at BBC was dumb enough to publish this absurd utterance.
Maybe I misunderstood this quote, and if someone else read it another way, please tell me. BUT what I'm reading is that someone decided that a child's potential use a laptop well depends solely on a good light bulb and central heating. Hmmm…Is it possible we might be forgetting the oh so tiny details of culture, wealth, capitalism and the general technological inundations that kids in “highly-developed” cultures are subject to from birth? There are far too many factors involved to be that reductive.
Also, as utopian of an idea as this is, I’m hesitant to think that the world would be a better place if we could just all have laptop computers. How about eating? That might be nice for a lot of places. How about national control over one’s own resources, so that countries can better boost their economies? How about a primary education?! The kids in the so called “slums” could benefit from a lot of things before EVER needing a computer.
This desire to connect everybody and give everybody a computer is so annoying and ridiculous to me. It’s so Western-centric. We seem to have difficultly understanding that not everyone needs or even wants technology. It simply may not be essential. We also tend to see technology (much in the same line of thought that science acts as the new religion) as the savior of humanity. “If only we could make everything electric and computerized and give those poor people internet access, it would all be better.” This is problematic for more reasons than I care to rant about, so I’ll save you the scroll-time.
I do think inexpensive laptops are a great idea. I just think people ought to think a little harder about who actually benefits from the technology and where it can be best applied.

Connected is Creepy

I can't help but feel like I'm traped in the Matrix reading Connected. Shaviro structures in an undercurrent of fear and distrust by so blatantly speaking on the ways that the network functions and controls. Part of the reason it is so disturbing is precisely because Shaviro is so upfront about it. This is no conspiracy theory, but rather a description of what actually happens and what is currently happening. The bringing in of science fiction (and with it the forecast of what could be, given our current trajectory) only adds to the underlying doom. Or maybe not so much doom, as dread.
A couple of quotes that got me looking around shifty-eyed for the cameras and impending apocalypse:
"It does not need to put us under surveillance, because we belong to it, we exist for it already" (32)
"Yet these people never interact with one another, for each of them is lost in his or her own little private world...the network can function in this manner, without contradiction, because each person is isolated and alone in precisely the same way."(31)
These two quotes are disturbing because they present the network as this powerful, non-human entity. It’s so disembodied, but at the same time utilizes our bodies. It seems to be controlled by a group of people, “The Man” style, but also seems unaffected by what humans want or need after an initial human input. The talk of viral marking and parasitic relationships add to the overall feeling of an entity out of our control. I think that’s a big feeling- loss of control. The network has no face, no name, no head, no place to “face-up” to it and fight it’s effects. That reality means a lack of agency and a loss of control at the individual level.
This loss of control would be okay, I guess, if the general state of things seemed to be going in a positive, constructive direction. If the network would bring us toward a utopia. But instead Shaviro describes the world, fully networked, as “Every square yard was occupied by a stall or shop or kiosk…The public address system thumped out urgent-sounding interruptions…MacLeod is showing us our own market-crazed society, of course, as it might appear from the other side of the mirror”(22). This, to me, is the ultimate dystopia. The consumerism and cut-throat capitalism as it is already makes me ill. To feel like every last inch of my life will be saturated with this advertising and consumerism scares me beyond reason. I’m not okay with the network taking over if that’s where we are going.
It makes me want to get out, escape the network and start a rogue group -of people who are dedicated to not letting this happen and staying human. (I might be getting carried away with my Matrix-like tendencies ) I suppose that's why I have friends and am a Media studies major...

And Now for Another Meta-Moment:

I HATE BLOGGING!
As I type this, I’m 4 blogs behind and still can’t quite get into the blogging grove….. I cracked.
Yes, I'm going to use one of my assigned blogs to whine about how much I hate blogs. But just to be fair and not completely abuse the openness of these assignments, I'm going to explain why.
1. I grew up with paper, in a print society.
It feels like I actually do something when I turn in a paper. All crisp and clean and neatly stapled. I know that it physically exists, and that it will get the due time being read and edited and I will know due time was given because I get the paper back, with responses and a grade. With blogging, I spend an hour typing up my thoughts (which I really do put a lot of time into) only to send them into cyberspace. I’ve gotten 1 comment the entire semester. That’s all the feedback I’ve gotten. It’s very difficult to keep learning and pushing my boundaries and thoughts when nobody gives me a direct response to my ideas. I don’t know if anybody reads them, or even if I’m smart. (Granted, that is a person self-esteem issue, but stay with me here)
Furthermore, paper is an actual thing. If my blog entries were papers (which I know are expected on the teacher’s desk) I would feel compelled to have the papers there. Blogs are just some stuffs on a screen and somehow I just have a hard time feeling accountable for my work online.
2. Computers + Focusing = Fracturing and Painful Slowness
The internet is distracting and essentially demands multitasking. With blogs, I have to be on the internet to post and manage. I finally figured out that I can type into Word and cut and paste, but I still have to deal with the Blogger interface. This really shouldn’t be a big deal. I know that I am capable of just shutting down all the other windows, but I never do. (Again, personal pitfall, but I’m ignoring my own problems right now) Guaranteed, while I’m writing a blog, I check my email 4 times, respond to 3 people and then start another blog half way through. Where a paper assignment would take 40 minutes, one blog entry can take between 1 to 2 hours. This is unacceptable and annoying. This lack of continuous thought I am blaming on the open-ended nature of the blogs. I have no reason to settle on a topic, nor any particular reason to follow through with an idea. I have no due dates, specifically. I have no immediate, tangible consequences to being late habitually. I don’t get a blog back that says, “C- This was two days late”. I’m not accountable in the blog realm, but I’m in an environment (my computer) that barrages me with other responsibilities (email, Word documents, my Palm schedule, iTunes{not really a responsibility, but really necessary to know what’s in my top 30 most played}) The computer is a distracted place for me, and my work, in reflection, is distracted.
Two reasons, may not seem like a lot, but this is the length for now. I’m imposing a limit, so that I can be done with this exercise that I loathe. I look forward to talking in class about blogs and seeing whether people got something nice, pleasant or just not-nasty out of them.

And when you say American, you really mean...

White Middle/upper-class men. That's right, I said it. It has come to me more and more that when we talk about American culture, we are not thinking about everyone, but rather that "classic" example of an American. In the case of Gomez-Pena's article, the generic/collective American has the added merit of being technologically savvy.
A very important understanding of how we understand ourselves as
Americans lies in the invisibility and assumption of our own characteristics, and the blatantly noted difference (and implied lack) assigned to other cultures or countries-which in comparison makes us look superior.
Gomez-Pena notes:
"This simplistic and extremely problematic binary world view portrays Mexico and Mexicans, as technologically underdeveloped, yet culturally and spiritually superior; and the US as exactly the opposite."
By separating out entire countries and juxtaposing them against the United States, we (Americans/ the dominant people (?))project our issues onto the land of the “Other”. This is the attitude of “those are third world problems” which both masks the internal diversity of class, race, and technological access, and maintaining a division between what is of “advanced” civilization and what is of “developing” civilizations. Sometimes, this ideology becomes so extreme that they are just “developing countries” and barely thought to be civilized at all. The very concept of Third world and Second world, says without saying that America is The First world country. There is such a supremacist hierarchy set up in our thinking that America has divided one world of people into three and then ranked them by some form of “objective” criteria. We put technology and science above spirituality in value. So they can have their culture (America doesn’t need culture anyways), but we are still better because we have the much more advanced achievement of technology. Note also, that I am perfectly understood when I say “America”, that I mean North America. How easily our thoughts and language slip into bias and exclusion.
Interrogating assumptions is at the heart of critical and cultural studies, so I won’t belabor that point. I just appreciated Gomez-Pena’s article in the ways that he spells out this manufactured separation of Mexico and Mexicans and Americans with their technology. Through his analysis of the ways in which technology is utilized by non-Americans it’s so obvious that the idea of “Mexicans can’t really understand technology” is absolutely ridiculous. As Gomez-Pena notes, binaries are troublesome. You push them and they fall apart. You present a third option, and they fall apart. You expose their creation and they fall apart. Gomez-Pena’s article did all of these things, especially the last of them. Particularly in new media, where it is so easy to get caught up in the newness and forget that very old (and often problematic, unjust) ideas are part of their creation, we need to continue to be critical and aware of who talks about the subject, in what terms and with whose permission. I applaud Gomez-Pena for doing this with blatant honesty, humor and good old fashioned refusal to say “that’s the way it is” when that’s not that way at all.