Fallout 4 and the materialities of our imaginaires.

As most of you are probably aware, Fallout 4 will be coming out November 10th. The Fallout series mirrors our timeline until 1945. Fast forward to 2077, there is a Great War in which all the nuclear capable countries attacked each other due to oil interests.

Although it is a fictitious futuristic game, there was once an instance in which this reality may have been real. After the Little Boy and Fat Man where dropped in Japan, the two world superpowers where on the brink of nuclear war.

The Fallout series can seem to have parallels to our fears at the time. I also saw all the things created in this new world that did not exist, these imagined materialities of the game are not that from reality. We are working towards self-driving cars and the military has exoskeletons. This clip speaks to what I mean in the game.

Can you guys think of other examples of media which has these imaginaries which are coming to life?

Quote from imgur: "the Fallout universe can be viewed as a stylized representation of the future through the eyes of those living in the beginning of the Atomic Age"

Is Capitalism a Socially Accepted Form of Extortion?

Christian Fuchs claims anti-work is a mistake concept. Scholars have argued that the idea of work is stemmed from the capitalist mentality that has molded western culture. Fuchs argues that people need to work in order for us to stay economically strong and well balanced. The opposing argument is that work is inherently toil and alienated and must be abolished. Capitalism creates an unbalanced economy where the few wealthy extort the poor who have no other choice.

This short video sums up the pros and cons of capitalism. Do you agree with Fuchs that anti work is a mistake concept or do you believe work involves a socially accepted form of extortion?

Dinocorns and New Ventures

In Gina Neff's Venture Labor she discusses the rise of the dot-com boom as a result of a changing cultural landscape and a re-framing of economic risks as a narrow spectrum of possibility in the era of the Internet.

The Internet and the re-framing of risk inspired a lot of new ventures because people felt that since risk was becoming more individualized anyway, it only made sense for them to pursue ventures that they were 100% invested and in control of.  This ties in as well to Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy as discussed in the documentary All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace. Rand's philosophy is that everyone deserves to work for themselves and act selfishly to make a profit, and if they do so they will find success.

I believe that this philosophy as well as the framing of risk is what allows new ventures to exist, such as the microchip discussed in the Silicon Valley documentary.  If people were not convinced by the idea that risk creates capital, in addition to the greed for capital, there would likely be fewer new ventures that we now see as essentials.  The idea that risk is needed in order to create capital is also an idea perpetuated by the American Dream and what drives business culture to success.

A contemporary example of new ventures as a result of risks are startup apps such as Snapchat and Evernote.  These startups were extremely successful, earning the title of "unicorn" (a private startup that reaches a $1 billion value).  It is interesting that they were so successful because until they existed there never really seemed to be a need for them, so the risk was great.

What is especially interesting about these startups is that though they were founded approximately only seven years ago, they have earned the title "dino-corns," because of their old age and unchanging status in a constantly evolving market.  In this Mashable Article,  it discusses that these apps may be in trouble, but the public would never know since they are private companies who have no need to divulge such information to the public.

To me, the necessary youthfulness that startup apps require in order to be considered profitable is an additional risk "new venturers" take when they aim to create an app. It seems like a great risk to create a company based on a product that only has staying power of about seven years, and it forces creators to consider other ventures long before it seems their companies should be out of money.


If the embedded link doesn't work you can check it out here:
http://mashable.com/2015/10/19/unicorns-dinocorns-uber-snapchat/#l3gjMr3TJaqr

The Rise of the Micro-Celebrity

In her chapter on The Fabulous Lives of Micro-Celebrities, Marwick argues that it is the state of being famous to a niche group of people that lies at the very center of status in our world. Marwick wrote, becoming a micro-celebrity involves “creating a persona, producing content, and strategically appealing to online fans by being authentic,” in the sense that they “are expected to be more available and more ‘real’ than stars of the screen or stage” (114). Thus, their fame is considered micro, as it does not occur on the red carpet, on the big screen, or because of how well known they are, but rather it arises out of something that they have done with the aid of social media technologies, such as Instagram, Vine, YouTube, or Twitter. You could say that their fame is gained from the grassroots level. According to Marwick, there are two ways to becoming a micro-celebrity: from ascribed to achieved – pretty straightforward right? She notes that micro-celebrity is ascribed to those who are well known in specific subcultures, and that it is achieved through a self-representation strategy.

New York native Jen Selter squatted her way to becoming known as the “butt selfie” or “belfie” queen of Instagram (and Twitter), where she presents her 7.5 million fans with not only fitness and exercises selfies, but diet and exercise advice on how to achieve a toned behind like hers. While the feedback from Instagram users isn’t always positive, Selter continues to post positive and encouraging messages for anyone that follows her on social media. Additionally, she receives attention from not only the Instagram and Twitter community, but from clothing and nutrition companies as well. Selter is therefore an example of an achieved micro-celebrity status based on the way that she shares personal information about herself, acknowledges her audience by identifying them as her fans, and by the way that she strategically reveals information in order to increase and maintain her audience. All of which is comprised in achieving a micro-celebrity status as stated by Marwick.

So, would you agree that fame as we know it has changed? Why or why not? Do you think that these new kinds of celebrities, often regarded as ‘micro-celebrities’ and the way they come to achieve their Internet fame is beneficial to the rest of society? Who is your favourite micro-celebrity from social media platforms such as Vine, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, or Blogs?

Facebook invading our privacy???

In How to Think about Information, Dan Schiller explains the way information is used as a commodity through social labour via the internet. Major social media sites such as Facebook sell the information of its users as commodities to companies interested in advertising on the website. Everything we search or like on the website is collected as information. They are legally entitled to our information because of the terms and condition we agree to when signing up for the website allowing them to access all of our information even if we deactivate our account. 

Do you guys feel this is an invasion of privacy or is Facebook entitled to our information in exchange for free access to its web page?

WLU is under attack

For this weeks post, I thought I would pull from some relevant media content that effects all of us quite closely. Last week there was a online threat putting our school at risk - resulting in a lockdown for several hours. In addition, there has now been a second media threat putting our school, specifically the "science building/atrium" in danger.

As many of us are aware, the first threat had been traced and a man in the UK has been arrested. There was no nonchalant behaviour surrounding this threat, and authorities acted upon it quickly. It started making me think about how heavily influenced we are by the public social sphere. What can be interpreted as a cowardly and immature blog post, resulted in a legitimate security lockdown of a large academic institution, not to mention, in a completely different continent of the world. Drawing on this weeks readings - I thought this made a great connection to the documentary "We Will in Public". It was illustrated that the dot.com era would ultimately come to control our lives, and they were indeed correct. The documentary specifically focuses on the successes and failures of the dot.com era, yet it stimulated thought about how Internet has come so far, from its nascent stage. Virtual space and interaction has the ability to translate and reflect upon actionable human behaviour - and increasingly impacts social engagement and action.

Wilfrid Laurier Threat - via Snapchat (Global News)

1st Wilfrid Laurier Threat  - UK source (northumberlandnews.com)

Further, these threats also embody a facet of the imaginary of informational capitalism. What the Internet is capable of is completely unknown to us humans, and it continues to surprise us. Therefore, peculiar behaviour such as social media threats against a University,  perpetuates a thought of fear and anxiety. And we as humans, react appropriately. The man in the UK is playing a role of the imaginary. In his news interview he states that he utilizes the website as a place to "vent" or "get away", which suggests that it is somewhat of a utopian landscape of expression. Here we witness how the imaginaries of the Internet, and its capabilities play an influential on informational capitalism. It is this kind of imaginary information that is relayed to us as citizens, quite seemingly how a fictional blog post, becomes information that is able to capitalize on us as naive individuals.

The importance of our “Selves” and “Profiles” in Social Media’s “Big Picture"

I’m sure we can all agree with Marwick in that “social media has had a huge impact on life in the past decade.” As we’ve discussed Silicon Valley recently in class I decided to further elaborate on the belief that social media as a whole and Web 2.0 has the power to rapidly encourage people to produce online “selves” that are congruent with neoliberalism. 

The concept of “selves” could be compared to your actual self, or one’s online “profile”- which is arguably the center of Web 2.0. I say “arguably” because there are many critical factors that make up the concept Web 2.0 and social media as a whole, but those who are creating these “selves” and profiles are individuals like you and me. We’re also the ones who are constantly producing and consuming content which feed the internet’s capital- (which is a pretty big deal)

Why is it that the idea of “What someone looks like on Instagram VS. Real Life” an actual thing? What do we hope to portray online that may be different from “real life?” According to Marwick throughout Status Update “Web 2.0 models ideal neoliberal selves, and rewards those who adopt such subjectivities” (6).What are these subjectivities?

Do you believe that Web 2.0 has allowed the idea of the “self” and our lives as a whole to be an imaginary? I encourage you all to comment on and think about why or why not your own profiles online may be an imaginary or congruent with neoliberal values.

Democracy: real or imaginary?

With all the conversation around both the Canadian election and the upcoming American election, I think it's important to discuss democracy as an ideology, the imaginaries involved, and whether real democracy exists in contemporary society.

Democracy exists as an institutional imaginary; it is implicit in our society's systems and it is how we believe society operates. As an imaginary, democracy is existential, normative, and utopian. It is existential in that we believe we have it and that it exists; normative in our belief that it's essential to human rights - the idea that everyone has a right to a vote and voice; and utopian in the way that we expect living in a democratic society to inherently make everyone within the society equal and their voices important and heard. However, it is evident that we live in a hegemonic society where a specific social group benefits much more through our government than other groups.

The lack of democracy in North America was exemplified by Canada's most recent federal election and much of the media surrounding it. The following links explain how to vote "strategically" in your riding in order to remove Stephen Harper from power:

http://www.strategicvoting.ca/
https://www.votetogether.ca/

Most of the ridings end up with suggestion to vote Liberal. The united effort to rid Canada of Harper's power seems to oppose the idea that Canada is a democracy, especially when you are left with only one political party to vote for if you desire a change.

Democracy is meant to allow the citizens to choose who they want to run the country; recent events imply that Canada's democracy only allows its citizens to choose one person they do not want in power. There aren't many options, which means many Canadians are denied a voice.

How many of you voted for the party/candidate whose platforms you supported? How many of you voted strategically? And do you think that democracy still exists in contemporary society, or do we need to work to restore it?

Margin Call, Schiller and Mr. Robot

Admittedly, I do not know much about the way Wall Street works, so when we were watching Margin Call in class I did not always have the clearest idea what was going on, or why certain actions were good, or others bad.  What I did understand was that in this true life example, certain people held the power to make decisions that affected the lives of others, simply because of the access to information that they had.

I then read the Dan Schiller piece, How to Think About Information, and I think what he said about commodifying information is relatable to what we watched in Margin Call. Thinking of information as a resource adds an interesting dimension to Margin Call.  Really, there was no actual money in the film, it was all just data and data analysis.  Zachary Quinto’s character predicts the collapse of a market because he has access to the information and the “know-how” to understand it (techne).  This demonstrates the commodification of information because Quinto’s job is to develop and work with information, and in the case of Wall Street the information is directly tied to capital.

This reminds me as well of a theme in a newer TV series that I’ve been watching called Mr. Robot (very mild spoilers ahead).  In the show, one of the main characters make the point that “money is the operating system of society” (S01E01).  This really sunk in with me and I think it relates to the course, especially when you look at money as just digitized numbers in a database that determine a person’s worth and the privilege they have to access information.  In the show, they suggest that erasing all the informational history of money will ultimately put everyone on an equal playing field and allow for the redistribution of wealth.

I believe that this ties into the course because this perspective turns money into something imaginary- something invisible that guides our society, and demonstrates how imaginaries profoundly impact the materialities of our society, such as economic inequality as a result of capitalism.

I know that the show is fictional, but do you guys think that it is too utopian of a notion to suggest that “erasing” the information that is money could contribute to a more egalitarian society? Or do you think that it is a necessary articulation in our cultural economy?

The Internet as a Platform of "Oversharing"

Overshare: the Links.net Story

This short video explores one of the most modern uses of the Internet: social sharing. The narrator discusses how the Internet has become a tool to descend and transmit details of ones lives. This is typically done through blogging, status updates and membership to online communities such as chat rooms.  

The narrator explores the “awe” of the Internet & its infinite complexity, stating that the platform is naturally over exposing in essence. The Internet is a mass storage of information that extends far beyond the depths of a traditional library. Today, people have access to more information than they have ever had in the past. But, is a good thing?

This is an unanswerable question that has been proposed since the invention of the World Wide Web. With accessibility and depth of the Internet today, young children can be exposed to sex with the click of a button, and terrorist groups such as ISIS have the potential to launch themselves as world threats overnight. This was not the case when the Internet had a mere 600~ homepages in the early 1990s.

The narrator concludes by re-evaluating his relationship with the Internet as it bolstered in size and power. In our modern age, this evaluation has become a necessity. Our online experiences are often built on imaginaries, and thus, there is an inherent need to reflect on its impacts on our realities. 

Do you think that the potential for Internet surveillance should be apart of this evaluation?

The Role of the Internet: Then & Now

Nerds 2.0.1: Networking the Nerds

In a wired world, changes happen at lightning speed. The Internet itself has changed, and with it so has business, communication, technology and social architectures.

When the Internet was first invented, the “nerds” who invented it had a very modest view on how it will operate the power it will carry. These same nerds questioned the possibility and the likelihood of success for online businesses. Clearly, they couldn’t have been more wrong.

Today, ecommerce is booming and nearly everything you need to get done can be made easier with a few Internet searches. A current example of this is Real Estate- this week media outlets have spotlighted a revolution in the house buying process. Now, prospect homebuyers can go online and take virtual tours of homes.

This is incredibly facinating. Purchasing a home is one of the most important investments an individual makes in their life. Now, with  the Internet, buyers can make investment decisions without  stepping foot out of the house.  This inescapable movement towards a virtual imaginary begs the question of whether everything will become virtual? What are the limits of achieving a fully virtual world?

I propose there are none. Of course, nothing will ever be able to replace authentic physical experience, but there are no limits as to what can be mimicked in a virtual setting. Since the time of this video, the Internet has come a long way. It has woven itself into every facet of our world, influencing and transforming assemblages of culture, economy and policy.

Cognitive Capitalism

Yann Boutang has written an interesting piece on the introduction of Cognitive Capitalism. He has listed the 15 markers of cognitive capitalism. It is clear that as our knowledge grows, we are discovering new ways to make production faster, thus, eliminating specialized areas of work. Opposed to factory production, we now live in a society in which one worker is trained to be able to perform various different tasks, rather than understanding and specializing in one task.

As our knowledge grows, as does our technology. Andrew McAfee has created an incredible lecture explaining that almost all industries that were once entirely dependent on humans are now turning to technology. One of his most memorable points is that "economies run on ideas". Innovation is key to the functioning of our society. However, this does put a strain on the labour force. For instance, McAfee gives the example of the new Google self-driving car, which is able to drive and function without the assistance of a human. He predicts that an innovation like this will eventually take over the trucking industry. McAfee also makes a humorous reference to Kevin Jennings, who is a genius who has won the game show Jeopardy 73 times. The show eventually had Jennings play against Watson, a computer designed by IBM, and he was defeated. This just shows that with the growth of our knowledge, technology has the ability to outperform humans in various areas of life.

Andrew McAfee Ted Talk

As technology advances, do you feel that our generation will struggle to find jobs? Or do you feel that new technological innovations will provide a larger labour force?

Hi everyone!

 

     As you all know we were assigned to read, Contemporary Technological Discourse, pages 29-42 by Eran Fisher for this week. While reading through this chapter, I recognized that Fisher's argument spoke much about how social concerns and power relations are addressed by digital discourse being known in public discourse in current times. Fisher demonstrated this by referring to Wired Magazine as a prime example. As stated by Louis Rossetto, a founder of Wired Magazine,

"...digital citizens are reinvigorating democratic discourse and reinventing civil society...We at Wired remain obsessed with authoritatively reporting on the new economy, new media, crucial technologies, and the digital nation. With providing context for a community overwhelmed by data," (Fisher 36).

 

 With this in mind, do you believe that today's web companies tailor their precise, calculated services to our personal interests too much? Therefore do the major news and search engines under-expose us to competing view points of our own? It is a concern that often we must go out of our way to get information that is typically not suited for us. This Ted Talk by Eli Pariser demonstrates how we may want to reconsider if what we find in our search results as coming from an unbiased nature or not.

YouTube & Blogs = Alternative or Not?

As Alice Marwick explains in her article, zines gave rise to e-zines in the dot-com era. Zines were an alternative media format that substituted magazines and television shows. Marwick explains how many of the statements made about zines are comparable to blogs and YouTube videos. Unlike magazines, zines in the 80s and 90s did not contain any advertisements, and were produced for purer, personal reasons. Zines could be self-published by whoever wanted to take the time to cut, paste and create the item, and spread the word about whatever information was contained within it. Rather than subscribing to zines, few copies were often produced and then passed on to new readers for circulation. Zines were part of a counter culture, and defied the norms of their era. They were non-hierarchally constructed and read by ‘prosumers’, meaning that individuals who produced the zines were also the consumers of the zines.

YouTube videos and blogs have become a large part of our daily lives. According to an article, YouTube has over 490 million different users per month. Not to mention we spend approximately 2.9 billion hours on the site each month. In my opinion, when YouTube was first launched in 2005, the videos on the site may have been comparable to zines, considering they were all produced by independent users, and were produced for the, at the time, small YouTube community. YouTube videos were all created for mainly personal interest, as a way for individuals to share moments and experiences with other users. Since large corporations have begun to publish YouTube videos, I believe that the site has become mainstream and continues to move further away from any alternative media resemblance. Additionally, the site generates most of its profit from advertisements that viewers are obligated to watch before watching their selected video. 

Considering Marwick’s statements above, do you agree or disagree that YouTube and zines are comparable to each other? Why or why not? What about blogs (be specific about which ones)?