Connections

“We need to founder in the face of difficulty, we need to suffer solitudes, we need to know how utterly weird it is that we're here, no?” This is the question that Sven Birkerts puts in the online conference that appeared in The Atlantic Monthly Online on the America Online network. However, he does not ask for an answer; this is a rhetorical question that comprises his biggest critique of how we all make use of the Internet. Birkerts claims that we, as students, yearn to be connected all the time to as many friends as possible, and forget to spend some time with our own self.

It is interesting how Birkerts points out that more and more students fail at the “old print rituals” such as reading and understanding a book, but it is not our fault. So, what charges can be brought against us?

We have not been born in cyberspace, but it is true that most of us have been exposed to computers from an earlier stage in life. So, it is then normal to turn to the electronic communications, but have we not gone a bit too far? This is where Birkerts’s questioning of our uses of the Internet might seem reasonable.

The monster from every childhood is the darkness. As we grow, the feeling of being left all alone in the dark seems to be replaced by having no friends on Facebook, or no one to chat to. We live in a world in which the one with most likes on Facebook is the most popular and the one who is not connected is simply left behind. This is a world that we have created – it was not implied with the birth of the Internet – and this is what Birkerts criticizes.

An explanation might lie in our way of measuring success in life.  If more people know our name, it must mean that we hold a very important social position and we are much closer of achieving our dreams of greatness. As we move forward on this path of becoming celebrities, we advance farther away from our own self; Birkerts has noticed that “For some decades now we have been edging away from the opaqueness of private life and toward the transparency of a life lived within a set of systems, electronic and other”.

There are definitely unquestionable advantages that the existence of Internet has brought upon us. Nevertheless, as with all other things we have created, there is also a downside. After all, the Internet did not come with a manual so we have started using it in ways that are not exactly proper. Personally, I am not against any web related activities, but I cannot help wondering whether the desire of being connected is taking over our lives, our private selves. This feeling of “connectedness” has effects similar to the ones of a drug. Once the light from our contact point appears on the circuit board that Birkerts talks about, we become happy. But will it not also make us numb to what happens in the real world? In this content, what the consequences that Birkerts foresees, the flattening of historical perspectives or transforming ourselves into shallow human beings are definitely plausible.

Birkerts, Sven. "Into the Electronic Millennium". Boston Review (1991). Web. 28 Feb. 2011. http://bostonreview.net/BR16.5/birkerts.html.

Online Conference - "Is Cyberspace Destroying Society". The Atlantic Monthly Online (1995). Web. 28 Feb. 2011. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/aandc/trnscrpt/birkerts.htm.

Megacorporations vs. Individuals: The face-off that will change cyberspace forever

Verizon has gone to court to block the net neutrality regulations which are meant to ensure that ISPs cannot favor Internet content and services. The Apple Store is redefining the term of exclusivity, controlling every application you try to run on all of your iDevices. Even more, until recently, AT&T has been the only service provider for iPhones.

If we draw a line, we can see how the media behemoths are striving to grow their own “walled garden”. This version of the world is very similar to the future which Tim Wu predicts in The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. And with Verizon, Google, Facebook, Apple, or AT&T, that future does not seem very far away. World2.0 might resemble Gibson’s world but that is light years ahead of us.



"Internet Map"



At first glance, the very structure of the Internet seems to support Gibson’s view of a world in which anyone can enter the cyberspace and access all the existent data. After all, the Internet puts everything one could possibly want within easy reach. However, somehow without even realizing it, the machines that we use on a daily basis are not serving anymore their original purposes. Wu contends that the new machines are “designed for consumption, not creation” (293). He illustrates this situation with devices such as the iPod and the iPad that, thanks to attractive interfaces, have managed to draw attention from the lack of power given to the individual. Here, a counterargument could be the ability to develop apps; however, these apps usually cannot be used on different operating systems and must be approved before one can implement them on his or her device. In this case, the information industry is more polished and more convenient, but there is also less choice. As Wu suggests, this is very much similar to what happened in the information industries from the twentieth century. Gibson underestimated the strong belief of conglomerates that they are the only ones apt to identify and fulfill popular desires. 

William Gibson is quick to notice the importance of single individuals that work their magic in cyberspace. The “console cowboys”, as he names them, have the power (the brains) to rule the world, to access everything. The main character, Case, is the lone cyber-cowboy who works from the shadow and does not have any higher aspirations. However, Gibson fails to understand the complexity of human beings. Based on the theories of the economist Joseph Schumpeter, Wu points out that there exists “a special breed” – those people who dream of becoming gods, of founding private empires (29). After all, who does not wish to be the boss, to be better than everyone? Whether one wants to serve one’s nation as in the case of Mr. Vail or simply to enter the circles of celebrities as in the case of Steven Ross, most people have dreams of greatness and being renowned for their deeds.

In the world of Neuromancer, Case does everything he is told, even if he does not know who is actually behind the decisions. His indifference is perfectly illustrated at the end when he does not care that the A.I. has become “the sum total of the works” (269). Case can do all these because he is an outsider, a disinterested party. Wu is the one who emphasizes the importance of the concept of distance in the process of creating. While the outsiders “can afford to scuttle a perfectly sound ship”, the ones closer to an industry “face a remarkably constant pressure not to invent things that will ruin their employer” (Wu 20). At the same time, Wu stresses the importance of the “right” distance in order to innovate, a concept that is becoming more difficult to achieve. When companies like Microsoft and Apple are rising against open source or free software, it becomes obvious that we are heading in the opposite direction from the world of outlaws envisioned by Gibson. One might argue that all these companies are just trying to keep their businesses up and running, but all these giants have reached this stage of development thanks to the concept of openness of the Internet. Right now they want to close the circle, so that other players cannot disrupt their lasting supremacy. Even Google, the epitome of openness, has become a partner of Verizon – the same company that is very much eager to block free access to sites such as Netflix.

Wu shows how, as a result of this forced closure, creativity and innovation are severely limited. He describes the Kronos effect in order to explain how the natural process of innovation can be hindered by the works of the monopolistic companies: “the efforts undertaken by a dominant company to consume its potential successor in their infancy” (25). This has serious consequences as the numbers of lone outsiders are decimated and, more importantly, they are discouraged from reaching their full potential. As it becomes more difficult to penetrate the web created by large corporations, the idea of a 3D cyberspace, of the “consensual hallucination” that Gibson imagines, remains far-fetched.

Gibson feared that once we have access to technology we will not be able to understand its power and we would end up building artificial intelligences and destroying our humanity. Nevertheless, this has not occurred.  We have developed AIs but we are still far away from becoming one with the machine. Apparently, the big corporations envisioned the same outcomes and decided to rescue us from a bleak future by controlling our power. The issue of controlled content has also been tackled by Lawrence Lessig in his work “Open Source and Open Societies”. He underlines the initial use of the Internet: “a space built on a commons, where because most early code governing the net was open code, and where because of the architectural principle of end-to-end, the network owner could not control how the net would be used – the resource of the net was left open for innovation”, but makes it clear that things have changed and the trend is to control everything one can do on the Internet.

There is another aspect that Gibson has not taken into consideration: the role of the government. The only example of a law enforcement organism is represented by the Turing Police which completely fails in accomplishing its task. However, at present it is evident that people still turn to the government for guidance; otherwise riots would occur all over the globe. We have not yet reached the stage when we do not approve of the government interfering with our actions. Thus, Gibson fails to analyze the implications of the existence of a government. Wu, on the other hand, understands that federal agencies play a significant part. As he perfectly emphasizes: “history shows that in seeking to prevent the exercise of abusive power in the information industries, government is among the actors whose power must be restrained” (304). So, while the government can be the only one that can divide the power of the information industry and prevent a monopoly, the government is also the one that can intervene in the market in favor of a new technology or a large corporation.

Wu’s future of a world ruled by megacorporations is definitely the most plausible one. However, this conclusion goes beyond the arguments that he presents. For me, it is simple the result of acknowledging the current state of affairs in the information industry. The view of monopolies taking over what we see or do on the Internet is not anymore a SF scenario, but something that could happen very soon.

What Gibson has imagined remains a revolutionary idea. Though, it is worth mentioning that both options have a negative impact on humanity. We can choose between two evils: the absence of freedom and too much freedom. It is also interesting if once Wu’s fears have materialized, Gibson’s world will not actually become a desirable escape. Wu debates that the attractiveness of the Hollywood blockbusters and the dazzling devices such as smartphones or iPhones, make most of us forget the danger of an informational empire;

“To see what is sacrificed to such efficiency, polish, and convenience, however, takes work, and to some it may forever remain invisible. It requires appreciation of the merits of systems in which, so to speak, the trains do not always run on time. It requires appreciation of the forms of speech and technical innovation that are excluded in the name of perfection and empire” (305).

While this is a valid statement, there still exists a remote possibility that everyone will understand the dangers of monopolies once we found ourselves face to face with the outcomes of ruthless empires taking over. In this case, Gibson’s wonderland might not seem just an illusion. Indeed, a rebellion against the corporation system might be set in motion and it might eventually lead to lone console cowboys ruling the world.

Work Cited:

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Knopf, 2010.

Gibson, William: Neuromancer. New York: ACE Books, 1984.

Lessig, Lawrence: Open Code and Open Societies. Web.  http://www.lessig.org/content/unpublished/. February 23, 2011.

Second Life: a better life?

The documentary “Second Skin” brings to light some unknown aspects of the online gaming world. It presents both the negative and positive parts. Nevertheless, as much as I enjoyed learning more about gaming, watching this movie has not made me take a clear stand regarding online games. On the one hand, gamers are depicted as people who do not care about jobs, families, and life in general. On the other hand, we are presented with a disabled person whose only portal to the world is the game because that is the only way he can express himself. Personally, all these made it very challenging to draw a line and claim whether games are good or evil.



World of Warcraft screen caption - Flickr



What I found more surprising is why so many people have designed their own avatars and decided to “move” in the virtual world, to play there or to simply live there? It is obvious that the answer lies in the real world but we might all have ignored it. Dr. Castronova claims that in order to escape from the meanness of the world, some choose to play, and even live, in these virtual communities. I agree that reality is often harsh and not exactly user-friendly. While there exist persons who simply do not make any effort to accomplish anything worthy, there are more of those who are not allowed to. Whether in college or at work, we are all taught to be competitive, but some are more determined than others. In this fight to become number one, one might literally step on somebody else’s dreams and ambitions. I do understand that there is not enough room at top for everyone; some have to win and others have to lose. However, when one succeeds by cheating or destroying others, it is when the real world becomes somehow darker and less appealing.

This situation is not necessarily prevalent at the workplace. There are various other ways to hurt someone that can have a very grave impact. For example, many teenagers refuse to become friends with someone who does not look good enough, or has a different social status, or is just not a cool guy. Who can then blame that person from wanting to find friends that treat him or her as an equal? And this is definitely one of the lures of the multiplayer online games. The documentary shows how four men have been brought together by WOW and made lasting friendships.

Flickr

In the worst case, the addicted gamers believe that there is no hope for the real world, that there really is no one who can make a change in the world. So, by embracing their second skin they are given unthinkable powers and they can actually change the virtual land for the better. They can kill all the monsters, and, thus, they make that place a safer one. Who does not dream to become a famous hero?

Have we reached this stage? Is it really nothing else to be done in the real world to change the current status quo? I do not believe it but this time it is not only up to me. After all, cliché or not, you have to be the change you want to see in the world.

Play in virtual worlds and work in the real world

After reading all the three books, Play Money presents a world that is somewhere in between Wu’s and Gibson’s. On one side, there is the force that drives Dibbell into the world of MMOs, which is the same force that powers Wu’s cycle – MONEY. On the other hand, it shows a version of Gibson’s “consensual hallucination”, in which we become immersed through avatars and, surprisingly, through play. Personally, I found most interesting how playing games can actually make for a pretty good living! It really makes one wonder how virtual the virtual world truly is…

Throughout his book, Dibbell describes “the process by which a thing becomes a commodity, the network of transactions that connects the warriors and smiths who produce the pieces to the hustler who puts the pieces together to the broker who buys the assemblage to the eBayer who buys from the broker to the player who plays” (144). This is the amazing supply chain, and I say this because the commodity is a “thing” produced by warriors and smiths. Other than this, it resembles a typical chain from the broker, to  eBay, and, finally, to the buyer. It is when you actually discover the revenue of this industry of “virtual loot farmers”, that it really becomes mind-blowing.

Somehow, while advancing in reading this book, my feeling of disappointment grew. Why do I say that? At one point, the exciting game transforms into a trade. As Dibbell depicts, there are people who simply buy something from X at a low price, and then sell it to Y for a higher price. This is just a basic trade scheme. Even Dibbell, once very fond of his house in UO, does not visit his place anymore, and, eventually, sells it. Is it here where the game turns into work?

From Dibbell’s confessions, we can see that playing money can really be stressful and, for some of the players, it can actually take up more time than a normal day job. Of course, one might argue here that it is more exciting than a regular job. Nevertheless, if you do not get in the game, the excitement can only stem from the rising figures into one’s PayPal account.

From a brainstorming exercise from class, I learnt that most students associate work with attributes such as tedious, strict, and meaningful, whereas fun is defined by fun, excitement, or even waste of time. However, I think there is not a very clear distinction between two. For example, when a lawyer defends a bad guy, can that job really be qualified as well spent time? On the other hand, when we play games are we really that carefree? We all want to win, and if we lose, then the game is not fun anymore. In my opinion, playing is the first time when we discover competition, and is a way of improving different skills. With video games, one can learn how take risky decisions in a short amount of time or discover what it means to be part of a team. I admit that spending an entire day playing might be wasteful, but there are undoubtedly many other benefits. And it is not at all easy to be good at playing games, especially at the online multiplayer games. So, when we add money to everything I have mentioned before, the game becomes work. 

It seems that I have once again reached the conclusion that everything revolves around money (no matter the currency). In this case, though, I think it is normal this way. Who said that you cannot earn a living by playing? I believe a job should bring a steady income and a respectable social position, but it also has to be pleasant, challenging, and even fun, otherwise we would all go crazy, and then, game over!

A face-off between megacorporations and individuals that will change cyberspace forever

Verizon has gone to court to block the net neutrality regulations which are meant to ensure that ISPs cannot favor Internet content and services. It is worth mentioning that Verizon’s buddy is no one else than Google, the epitome of Internet openness. The Apple Store is redefining the term of exclusivity, controlling every application you try to run on all of your iDevices. Even more, AT&T is the only service provider for iPhones.

If we draw a line, we can see how the media behemoths are striving to grow their own “walled garden”. This version of the world is very similar to the future which Tim Wu predicts in “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires”. And with Verizon, Google, Facebook, Apple, or AT&T, that future does not seem very far away. World2.0 might resemble Gibson’s world but that is light years ahead of us.

At first glance, the very structure of the Internet seems to support Gibson’s view of a world in which anyone can enter the cyberspace and access all the existent data. After all, the Internet puts everything one could possibly want within easy reach. However, somehow without even realizing, the machines that we use on a daily basis are not serving their original purposes. Wu contends that the new machines are “designed for consumption, not creation” (293). He illustrates this situation with devices such as the iPod and the iPad that, thanks to attractive interfaces, have managed to draw attention from the lack of power given to the individual. In this case, the information industry is more polished and more convenient, but there is also less choice. As Wu suggests, this is very much similar to what happened in the information industries from the twentieth century. Gibson underestimated the strong belief of conglomerates that they are the only ones apt to identify and fulfill popular desires. 

William Gibson is quick to notice the importance of single persons that work their magic in cyberspace. The “console cowboys”, as he names them, have the power (the brains) to rule the world, to access everything. The main character, Case, is the lone cyber-cowboy who works from the shadow and does not have any higher aspirations. However, Gibson fails to understand the complexity of human beings. Based on the theories of the economist Joseph Schumpeter, Wu points out that there exists “a special breed” – those people who dream of becoming gods, of founding private empires (29). After all, who does not wish to be the boss, to be better than everyone? Whether one wants to serve one’s nation as in the case of Mr. Vail or simply to enter the circles of celebrities as in the case of Steven Ross, people have dreams of greatness and being renowned for their deeds.

In the world of Neuromancer, Case does everything he is told to even if he does not know who is actually behind everything. His indifference is perfectly illustrated at the end when he does not care that the A.I. has become “the sum total of the works” (269). Case can do all these because he is an outsider, a disinterested party. Wu is the one who emphasizes the importance of the concept of distance in the process of creating. While the outsiders “can afford to scuttle a perfectly sound ship”, the ones closer to an industry “face a remarkably constant pressure not to invent things that will ruin their employer” (Wu 20). At the same time, Wu stresses the importance of the “right” distance in order to innovate, a concept that is becoming more difficult to achieve. When companies like Microsoft and Apple are rising against open source or free software, it becomes obvious that we are heading in the opposite direction from the world of outlaws envisioned by Gibson.

Wu shows how, as a result of this forced closure, creativity and innovation are severely limited. He describes the Kronos effect in order to explain how the natural process of innovation can be hindered by the works of the monopolistic companies: “the efforts undertaken by a dominant company to consume its potential successor in their infancy” (25). This has serious consequences as the numbers of lone outsiders are decimated and, more importantly, they are discouraged from reaching their full potential. As it becomes more difficult to penetrate the web created by large corporations, the idea of a 3D cyberspace, of the “consensual hallucination” that Gibson imagines remains far-fetched. Gibson feared that once we have access to technology we will not be able to understand its power and we would end up building artificial intelligences and destroying our humanity. Nevertheless, this has not occurred; apparently, the big corporations envisioned the same outcomes and decided to rescue us by controlling our power. The issue of controlled content has also been tackled by Lawrence Lessig in his work “Open source and open societies”. He underlines the initial use of the Internet: “a space built on a commons, where because most early code governing the net was open code, and where because of the architectural principle of end-to-end, the network owner could not control how the net would be used – the resource of the net was left open for innovation”, but makes clear that things have changed and the trend is to control everything we can do on the Internet.

There is another aspect that Gibson has not taken into consideration: the role of the government. The only example of a law enforcement organism is represented by the Turing Police which completely fails in serving its purpose. However, at present it is evident that people still turn to the government for guidance. We have not yet reached the stage when we do not approve of the government interfering with our actions. Thus, Gibson fails to analyze the implications of the existence of a government. Wu, on the other hand, understands that federal agencies play a significant part. While the government can be the only one that can divide the power of the information industry and prevent a monopoly, the government is also the one that can intervene in the market in favor of a new technology or a large corporation. As Wu perfectly sums up, “For history shows that in seeking to prevent the exercise of abusive power in the information industries, government is among the actors whose power must be restrained” (304).

Wu’s future of a world ruled by megacorporations is definitely the most plausible one. However, this conclusion goes beyond the arguments that he presents. It is simple the result of acknowledging the current state of affairs in the information industry. The view of monopolies taking over what we see or do on the Internet is not anymore a SF scenario, but something that could happen very soon.

What Gibson has imagined remains a revolutionary idea. Though, it is worth mentioning that both options have a negative impact on humanity. We can choose between two evils: the absence of freedom and too much freedom. It is also interesting if once Wu’s fears have materialized, Gibson’s world will not actually become reality. Wu debates that the attractiveness of the Hollywood blockbusters and the dazzling devices such as smartphones or iPhones, make most of us forget the danger of an informational empire: “To see what is sacrificed to such efficiency, polish, and convenience, however, takes work, and to some it may forever remain invisible. It requires appreciation the merits of systems in which, so to speak, the trains do not always run on time. It requires appreciation of the forms of speech and technical innovation that are excluded in the name of perfection and empire” (305). While this is a valid statement, there still exists a remote possibility that everyone will understand the dangers of monopolies once we are faced with the outcomes. In this case, Gibson might not seem just an illusion. A rebellion against corporation system might lead to lone console cowboys ruling the world.

Work Cited:

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Knopf, 2010.

Gibson, William: Neuromancer. New York: ACE Books, 1984.

Lessig, Lawrence: Open Code and Open Societies. Web. February 13, 2011.

Caught in the matrix

What communication technology do I use on a daily basis? This is not a difficult question to answer considering that I did not get a cellphone (or should I say smartphone) ever since I came to the USA, and I use Facebook mostly as a remainder of birthdays. So, what do I do? I do programming in Java and C++. Although some might say this is a passive use because currently I do not share my code with anyone (except for my professors, of course), I find programming very much engaging.

Geek&Poke

You might be wondering how this can be possible. Well, when I start writing algorithms, I become much immersed. It is definitely not the same thing as in Gibson’s book; I do not become one with the machine. However, I often lose track of time while trying to solve an algorithm, and figuring out the bugs in the program. This can be quite frustrating at some moments, but I can spend an entire day staring at the computer just to get it right. I do not have a regular schedule as I might work more on some days: writing code for my labs, or projects, or I simply compile programs to get a feeling of how a certain principle works. And when I do this it can take me quite a while because I really want to see the results. I do not know if this only applies to programming since I usually like to complete what I start.

While reading Neuromancer, I shared to an extent Case’s feeling of excitement towards the cyberspace. However, it is surely not the same thing. The real world that Case lives in is dehumanized, in total decay, so any escape from it is desirable. In my real world, I enjoy programming because I want to know more about how thinks work, what is behind all those applications that I use, hoping that I will design something similar in the future. Additionally, I cannot paint or sign, so, I guess with programming I feel as if I am creating something even if is not a very significant algorithm.

To contradict Gibson, I see the good part of technology: how one can write different algorithms that can be applied in so many fields and can make a lot of procedures common. And while I use computers more for programming, some might use it to get connected with friends, or to play games. I believe that we all see computers and all the communications technologies as helpful tools. We need them to break down the barriers of places, to save time, or simply to make our lives easier and better. We do not need a hallucinatory world in which we can “jack in”. Somehow, I guess it is better that we cannot commute from the real world to a virtual one regularly. If something like that were possible, we might come to the conclusion that the real life is not as exciting as we imagine it now.

FREESIDE: WHY WAIT?

Gibson’s “Nueromancer” presents the dark side of technology. This is not at all an overstatement, as it seems to me that Gibson only noted the negative effects of technological advance. In my opinion technology goes hand in hand with pure innovation and that is why I believe everyone has to encourage and support technological advances. Maybe, it is related to the fact that I use a computer on a daily basis. It is so helpful and within easy reach so why would it be dangerous? Yet, I am not able to get out of my head the image of the world depicted by Gibson.

In his book, Gibson shows how if we rely too much on machines, we will eventually become one with the machine. He tries to warn us by depicting a world in decay with nothing human left in it. There is a permanent sense of degradation and death: “The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel” (Gibson 3). It is interesting how Gibson tries to show the threats of digitized world. Actually, the main character of the book believes that Cyberspace represents a better life. In this respect, there is a passage that reflects the relation between body and mind: “In the bars he’d frequent as a cowboy hotshot, the elite stance involved a certain relaxed contempt for the flesh. The body was meat. Case fell into the prison of his own flesh.” (Gibson 6). This was particularly striking as there is absolutely nothing human about meat. For Case, the body appears to be a prison, a limitation. He would much rather be inside the Matrix and see everything thorough someone else’s eyes.

It is worth wondering whether Gibson’s “Neuromancer” has indeed produced the desired effect which was to send a warning. A lot of people might share Case’s disgust at the ordinary life, and, thus, might be eager to escape into Cyberspace, into a world that presents them with new exciting adventures. In their pursuit of leaving something great behind some might choose to live in the virtual life forever, and program themselves into ROM data constructs…