IRL Prosumption

Hi everyone,
Throughout this course we have discussed how prosumption has grown from web 2.0 taking advantage of its users free labour, to Manzerolle discussing how social media companies have figured out how to straight up exploit us, monetize our work and increase their profits through advertising they force on us through their apps.

I would like to talk about how this is increasingly concerning because businesses IRL are beginning to take hints from the online industry.

In this article "Prosumption: Why Just About Everyone Unwittingly Works for Free," the author lists a bunch of things that are technically prosumption in the offline world.  Things like building IKEA furniture, pumping your own gas and now even making your own food at restaurants.

I thought this was significant to talk about on the blog because we had talked about IKEA furniture in class earlier, but I think we were able to justify it's "worth" for the consumer by saying that by building the furniture ourselves it saves us money.  This is similar to how with social media, at first it wasn't really significant that our personal data was being mined, because we got to use the service for free.

Now however, restaurants like these ones are charging restaurant prices for food that you could buy for much cheaper at the grocery store, and advertising it to you as "DIY Restaurants," like it's a fun outing with your friends. In reality though, you are paying to do what these businesses formerly had to pay employees to do.

This to me is just like the way we as social media users are being exploited for our personal data, as well as by being the primary content producers on these platforms.

Can anyone think of any other ways that these IRL prosumer businesses might be detrimental, other than just being exploitative?

Thanks Wikipedia, for allowing me to Graduate

My Wikipedia searches this term have ranged from "Non Government Organizations" to "Materialities/Imaginaries" to Justin Bieber- and the website helped me understand each topic I searched in addition to some other research. Without it, I honestly don't think I would be graduating from University this upcoming Spring. This is why I decided to donate to the Wikipedia Foundation this past month. I understand that Wikipedia is not thought of as a reliable source for scholarly papers but it is indeed a great way to start a paper to get a general understanding of main concepts/themes/definitions. This post is intended to be a shout-out and socio-economic analysis of the extremely popular medium all University students must know and love.
The website can be thought of as a non market peer production platform that enables success for some users and dissatisfaction for others in the sense that their governance structure has been labelled has "autocracy and bureaucracy."


"Wikipedia shapes online sociality not by implementing buttons for liking, friending, following and trending- functions anchored in the popularity principle- but by contructing a platform for 'knowing' that is moored in the neutrality principle" (Van Dijck, 2013).

Wikipedia has created a platform that is actively involved in what Van Dijck calls a "culture of connectivity" but has done so in a way that contributes to our knowledge and understanding of everyday concepts and largely valuable to us as students. Wikipedia has never allowed advertisements so it's obvious that this is not their business model- rather they
focus on public and private donations from people like ourselves and companies to keep up with the maintenance of the platform. Without these donations, the "free online encyclopedia" would not exist, and that to me- sounds like a nightmare.

Would you agree that Wikipedia can be described as the epitome of crowdsourcing? Would you consider donating to the Wikipedia foundation?

"Dear Labour It's No Longer OK to Not Understand the Internet"

Hello everyone! I wanted to share this really interesting read with you all that I found on The Guardian. It's titled: Dear Labour, it is no longer OK not to get the internet by: Gaby Hinsliff.

The article is a tad confusing as Hinsliff discusses a wide variety of concepts. One of the key concepts we're going to focus on is based on the interconnected, digitally dependent world we live in and the notion that it is no longer okay or ethical for politicians to not be internet literate/effectively use the internet in their political and everyday practices.

"You can't tackle the radicalization process without undersstanding that it's moved on from mosques into suburban bedrooms, where teenagers talk direct to Islamic State fighters via messaging apps you've probably never heard of (and to which security services will increasingly demand."

This article allows me to infer on Fuchs notion's specifically in Chapter 8.1 in which he discusses the social roles that have been constituted for modern society. Each level whether it's Political roles, Economic roles or Private roles all have a role in prosuming modern medias.

"As modern society is based on structures of accumulation and a separation of roles within different realms, there are different conflicts of interest over the control of property, collective decisions, and meanings that can result in social struggles."

I would state that it is important for political persons to be internet literate/present online for the sake of their own campaigns- to reach a wide audience and to properly connect and engage with the public. The fact of the matter is that user generated content is dominating the internet and provoking conversation- which politicians need to be aware of and engaged in. Would you agree that it's critical for politicians to be internet/computer literate and be participating on various platforms online to communicate with the public? Why or why not?

Hillary Clinton: on fleek?

American electoral processes seem to last forever; I feel like I know almost everything about the republican and democrat candidates. Part of this is due to the new style of electoral campaigns which are being introduced in the Information Age. With the popularity of Web 2.0, candidates now have a way to access a larger demographic and especially a demographic which is notorious the lack of voting: the youth. This is a perfect example of Marwick's self-branding. Clinton uses social media to advertise herself as hip, cool, and in touch with the citizens of the U.S. Some people have criticized Hillary Clinton for her attempts to appeal to a young crowd, identifying her as both "trying hard" and pandering to the youth.

Here's a good example of Hillary Clinton on Vine.

While it's important to get younger people involved in politics, some people argue that it makes a mockery of politics for Hillary to resort to meme-like content in order to get votes. What do you guys think? Is it important to have a political candidate who understands social media and uses it to advertise themselves? Or is it more important for political candidates to view youth as informed, responsible voters who cannot be won over by silly tactics?

Can Instagram Be Considered False Advertising?

Throughout this course we have become very familiar with the term self-branding and the various ways that we are encouraged to use social media to succeed. Instagram has become one of the most well-known platforms for self-branding and life streaming. Instagram has introduced an entirely new economic market in which people can gain capital by sharing photos and promoting brands through their social media.

How To Quickly Get Popular on Instagram

This article was written for users that want to market themselves on Instagram. It explains the various steps a person must take if they want to get popular on this social media platform. The article explains to readers how to obtain the most followers and the ways that they should get noticed and connect with other users. Today there are websites in which people can actually purchase followers to make their page look more popular than it may actually be.

If a business has an Instagram page and they purchased followers or likes, do you feel that this constitutes as false advertising/deception? Should we be allowed to purchase followers?

Martin Shkreli's Risky Business

Recently the internet was set ablaze after Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals,  raised the price of an HIV medication fifty times over. The move was criticized by people from all spheres including political figures such as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and others in the pharmaceutical industry. Despite the massive backlash Shkreli defended his decision, claiming that his move was simply the result of capitalism and was necessary to facilitate further pharmaceutical development.

The arc of Shkreli as villain reached its conclusion on Dec. 17th as Shkreli was arrested by the FBI for securities fraud. The arrest is predicated on the claim that during his time as a hedge-fund manager Shkreli ran a ponzi scheme in which he defrauded many of his investors.

(Shkreli leaving court)

While it's very satisfying to think of Shkreli's actions as inherently evil are they perhaps the result of something else? Are Shkreli's actions the result of, as Neff discusses, a culture of risk in which making risky decisions is considered a virtue? Is Shkreli simply one greedy and immoral individual, an isolated case? Or is he the product of American Dream style capitalism in which money must be made by any means necessary, even if that's stealing from the sick to give to the rich?

Social Media & News

In Christian Fuchs Social Media and the Public Sphere he discusses the transformative power of new technologies. By drawing on the concept of Habermas’s public sphere, Fuchs believes that social media puts focus on political and cultural communication. Unlike Habermas’s idea that says the public sphere is a question of its member’s command of resources. Social media in turn has become key in defining the public discourse for these social media platforms.  What this article reminded me of was the way we share and learn about important news events. For me I personally have found out major events through social media sites before hearing it on the news. This of course was not always the way people accessed important news information, and I find it very interesting how social media has caused a shift in how we search for information.

http://www.journalism.org/2015/07/14/the-evolving-role-of-news-on-twitter-and-facebook/

I came across this report by Pew Research Centre that shows the statistics on how many people are sharing news stories via social media.  From this the research shows that users are actually turning to these sites to fulfill different types of information needs. Its really interesting how we can seek out information in different ways and the transformative power social media has in how we seek it.

Do you find you get your information from social media sites more frequently than from specific news sites? Why do you think that is?

Immaterial Labour & Essena O'Neil

After witnessing Essena O'Neil's viral post of 'quitting social media', it got me thinking about the number of people that represented businesses online. I'm going to be honest, it never really dawned on me that there were so many social media celebrities contributing to hundred's of business' capital, and for what? Most of the principle influencers online are not positing to Instagram because it is their passion or they genuinely enjoy it (I am guilty for this), rather they are contributing to a corporations business model. 

Watch the response video to O'Neil's video, it is interesting to see the counter argument. 

One of the articles that we discussed in class called, Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0: Facebook and Social Networks, written by Cote and Pybus talk about this kind of "immaterial labour", and how individuals have come to sacrifice their own cognitive abilities in order to reach a position of cognitive capital. First off, the term "immaterial" is synonymous with the term irrelevant or unimportant, which get me thinking about how labour has evolved into a completely different term. Labour no longer involves the conventional practise of physical work, rather it has shifted into maximising social relationships, cognitive interactions and cultural subjects.  In addition, Cote and Pybus state, "What the ‘2.0’ addresses is the ‘free’ labour that subjects  engage in on a cultural and bio-political level when they participate on a site such as Facebook.In addition to the corporate mining and selling of user generated content, this would include the tastes, preferences, and general cultural content constructed therein". Here the authors tap into the uses of "free" labour, and how people, like Essena O'Neil who was completely encompassed in the social media platform of Instagram, become subjects in the corporate world online. Rather than just utilising the app for personal pleasures and experiences, people are becoming pons in the corporate game. Furthermore, this is exactly how businesses are successful, by people like Essena doing the work for them. By using influencers like Essena a business is able to strategically construct the way in which they influence consumers and generate revenue. 

What do you think? Do you think the term labour has completely shifted systems of thought? How? Is it a progressive movement that businesses are able to capitalise on cognitive behaviour and practice? Or is this going to lead more people like Essena to 'quit social media' and revolt against the way corporations can monopolize your media content? 

Digital Amnesia

Throughout this course we have looked at how different elements of imaginaries and materiality’s connect with one and other. These in turn create a set of competencies and affordances largely enabled by new technologies. These technologies then create a new set of social circumstances in which we live.   An interesting aspect of our information capitalism is the reliance on the dissemination of knowledge, through technology.  Many communications theorists believe that with these technologies enabling our life, our reliance may cause us to lose certain capabilities that were held before technology worked for us.

I came across this really interesting article on CTV News about digital “amnesia”. This article described how technology could actually be eroding our memory due to our reliance on it to give us information instead of relying on our own memory and recall system. Digital devices and the Internet are affecting the way we recall information.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/digital-amnesia-how-technology-could-be-eroding-memory-1.2599475

The article reminded me of various topics discussed throughout the semester about our shift to information capital and cognitive capitalism where the very face of our world has changed due to our technological advances. With these advances there are of course going to be changes in the way we as human’s function. Of course many of us think that its positive for use to rely on technology to store information as using a device to store certain information that’s not critical gives us space to store more pertinent information.

When you want to know how to cook something, gone are the days of memory recall, and here is the time of Googling. Do you think we rely too much on our technologies for information?

Organising for Social Justice

In our culture, globalisation processes and advancements in technology have worked synonymously in the development of redefined power structures. When it comes to resistance to power, social movements are the central actors for Castells. An example of this would be NGOs intervening as activists for the public to bring awareness to the overabundance of neoliberalism and multinational corporate capitalism. ICTs like YouTube act as important tools of mass self-communication that activists rely on in order to reach out to the public and raise awareness on issues. A lot of the time, social movements and NGOs are the ones who put pressure on governments and power institutions, which in turn, sparks governments with apprehension of what might happen if change does not occur. There are so many grassroots activists from all over the world who help to challenge the status quo, and without them I truly believe we would not see many of the societal progress that take place. Would you guys agree that NGOs are beneficial to our world? Also, have you ever been involved with an NGO? If so, which one was it?

Castells, M. (2009). Power in the Network Society. In Communication Power (pp. 10-53). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

How to become viral... accidentally

Judy Perly owned a small restaurant, and used vine as a marketing tool to promote her brunch specials. One day she decided to post a vine of herself on an airplane, just for fun. Instead, her vine become viral, having millions of loops, and many people parodied the original vine for comedic purposes. Judy Perly was not intentionally attempting to self brand herself, but instead was trying to promote her restaurant using vine. Judy Perly unconventionally achieved Alice Markwick's criteria of self branding by creating an authentic self and an image in which viewers see you as REAL and OPEN with your viewers. Her little makeup, unflattering angle and piece of food lingering on her face, along with her unique accent seemed to make viewers adore her. In Fuchs, "Social media and Productive labour" he discusses that Marx distinguished the workplace and social realms to be different, but social media has instead blurred the boundaries of this relationship. Our obligation to network online had be a priority, utilizing the internet as a institution has proven successful for many businesses.  This has become very true for Perly, as her work and social activities have become synonymous with the use of vine.  However, Mark Andrejevic in his article, "Estranged Free Labour" discusses that our tendency to use social media and the online infrastructure for socialization is problematic. He explains that we do not have control over our creativity on the internet because we often cannot control how our content is used.  This is evident due to the numerous "trolls", parodies and "gifs" created of this single vine Perly created.  Unfortunately for Perly, this vine success did not impact her business success in a financially positive way, but her own self brand has become known by millions.    

How can it be problematic for people to lose control over their creative on the internet?  Do you think there are more benefits or losses in publishing your content via the internet/social media?
Read the Buzzfeed article here

Are we becoming addicted?

In our hyperconnected world, apps give us immediate access to connectivity and can be used for both practical and entertainment purposes. In class we have discussed the amount of time that we devote daily to checking our phones and visiting our apps. Some of us even said that the first thing we do when we wake up is check our Instagram or other social media accounts. For Jodi Dean, apps not only fasten us to our devices, but they also “withdraw us momentarily from our larger world [and] the pressures of everyday life,” (Dean, 233, 2014) offering us an escape from reality, even if only for a few minutes. I know that this is especially true for me when I need a quick break from my work. Whilst some might get up and stretch or go for a walk, I’ll either check my Instagram or my BuzzFeed app. Did you guys know that they even have apps that help users to limit their time spent using apps on their phone? For example, there’s an app called Offtime that you can download right to your mobile device, which limits a users access to any apps that they overuse and records their activity to create charts on how much time they spend on their phones. There is also another app called BreakFree that monitors phone and app usage and tracks how addicted you are to your phone and apps. Do any of you think that there will ever become a point in time where you need to download an app that helps you to lower or control your time spent using apps or your phone?

Watch the following YouTube clip to see whether or not you are considered addicted to your phone. Obviously this exaggerative little clip is a marketing ploy to try and get you to download their app, but it does get you to consider whether or not you think you spend too much time using your apps. 

Dean, J. (2014). Apps and Drive. In A. Herman, J. Hadlaw, & T. Swiss (Eds.), Theories of the Mobile Internet: Materialities and Imaginaries (pp. 232-248). New York: Routledge.