The most important social effect technology without a doubt is access. Prior to technology like television and radio, people depended on newspapers for news from places perhaps not so close to home. TV and radio made information access faster. Once prices in the two declined, information was democratized. The Internet furthered the cause. Anyone with computer can access information they want instantly.
The beauty of access is anyone can create and add information to share with the masses, particularly with the start of Web 2.0. Blogging is a very new form of sharing information which is still being developed in terms what should be shared and how. Site such as Wikipedia and Craigslist are providing information for free and to anyone who can access it, as Craig Newmark stated in his keynote at SXSW Interactive 2006. Furthermore, Newmark said he didn't have an interest so much in making millions off his site, which is even more encouraging to those who seek information but may not always have the means to pay for it.
However, there are limits to access even in the world's richest country. A 2006 Wired article on the digital divide cited research from the Center for American Progress stating Hispanic and black students have limited access to Internet outside of school. It went on to state the lack of connection "narrows their ability to even think about the kind of work they can be doing." That is probably one of the most disturbing effects of technology, because it leaves an entire group of people behind. It affects students' education, possible future careers and even the way they communicate. You miss a lot when you aren't connected and the rest of your peers are.
Showing posts with label internet usage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet usage. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Internet Becomes Us
In the beginning of any movement, there tends to be a lot more attention placed upon the ferment than the land that is formed from it. We watch the dust settle, but miss the key alterations to our lives after the change that spawns the new beginning.
Make no mistake, we are experiencing a new beginning. Like the early trials of Democracy in Greece rediscovered and spread throughout the Enlightment, a marginal concept has become our new center.
As alluded to within 'A Review of Research on Internet Addiction' part of what we fear about the internet is its integration into our lives. How much of this is cultural bias rather than physiological ailment? Is 39 hours of net access bad for you? Is 39 hours of TV? Is 39 hours of reading books? Is 39 hours of talking with friends? The question of pathology often becomes a question of utility. 'Addiction' best makes its case when it asks if we are addicted to the Internet or are we addicted to what is available via the Internet, the consolidation of sex, interpersonal exchanges, sports, entertainment, and even intellectual pursuits. At what point is digital life no longer so alien to real life that we insist upon our division of the two? When does digital no longer represent the Other of myth and human psychology?
While I think the focus on Social Networking obscures the full extent of Internet culture currently available, it does offer a nice progression from the MUDs that concerned 'Life on the Screen' to the Pop fascination with Zuckerberg; in essence, the progression of topics illustrates the abandoning of Otherness we see in the Internet.
In 'Life' we see a look at the early fears of the Internet. False representations of self or the diluting of identity. We thought that playing pretend in text chats would threaten in ways that playing pretend as children did not. However, we tended to forget that we, even as adults, play pretend when we perform plays, recite our favorite movie lines, dress for Halloween, go on interviews or first dates. The self has always been transient, but the Internet allowed us to experience this anew - and the first time we try something new, it's always a kick in the pants.
'Life' brings up important concerns about self, but these are concerns regardless of how we pretend. At least online, we can examine the relative nature of such pretending. As 'Life' points out, the Internet makes deconstructing identity visible and apparent to the average user. But the difference between online and offline is not that we do not deconstruct identity offline, it's that we do not see it so easily offline.
The majority of these articles then move on to social networking. Social networking drives hits and usage, so it receives a lot of attention. In many ways social networking might be the first Pop Hit of the Internet, taking it mainstream (in the US and a select number of other countries). It's seems odd to talk about taking the Internet mainstream, but that's exactly what the articles in Wired and even the MSU study are actually talking about. Hitting the 18-24 crowd hard is what makes Social Networking the only rival to online gaming for net relevance these days, especially to the all-mighty advertisers. MUDs were never seen as socially acceptable like SN is seen to be. Even MMORPGs carry certain stigmas less associated with SN sites. The social capital that the MSU study shows linked to Facebook has one singular significance, it represents the Internet's evolution from Other to Us. The cool factor of SN sites so permeates culture that they allow membership into an online community without fear of marginalization. They are core. They are us. 92% baby!
Thus evolution of MUD to SN is about studies that move from observering the Other to observing the Us. This is the key cultural importance of the Now Internet: it's increasing and pervasive social and cultural acceptance. The Internet, like language and politics and fire before it, will become the Center and reshape the Margins. All these articles point to that level of acceptance and integration. Whatever the internet offers (sex, MUDs, SN, interactive knowledge, or ideas unknown), it is something we clearly desire in mass and are eagerly ready to reshape our culture and history around it.
So I cannot tell you what the most important cultural element of technology is, but I can tell you what the most important element of transcendent technologies like language, fire, and government share with the Internet. They become institutions around which we shape the core of our culture. They become Us.
However, when something becomes Us, we often forget to examine who and what that makes Other. Wired's take on the Digital Divide is as wise as it is rare. Too often we speak proudly of 70% Net saturation and 50% broadband access. But, with the technology of the Internet quickly becoming(ed) the defining technology of our culture that means we have cast off huge segments of our one time culture as Other, not Us. Worse, many of these castoffs include traditionally marginalized groups that risk a new round of exclusion and hostility.
And there will be hostility. The Us always acts aggressively towards the Other.
Internet scholarship shows this with its nearly blind focus on the U.S. Even in the rare cases when studies occur outside the U.S. the same names are often heard - you can often simply look at the G8 as a quick reference guide. What article cited a non-Western source? A source outside the U.S.?
The Internet has become Us and the Us it has become is not inclusive, not of the world and not even of the entire U.S. The Internet has become Us, but we are not the Us of before.
Make no mistake, we are experiencing a new beginning. Like the early trials of Democracy in Greece rediscovered and spread throughout the Enlightment, a marginal concept has become our new center.
As alluded to within 'A Review of Research on Internet Addiction' part of what we fear about the internet is its integration into our lives. How much of this is cultural bias rather than physiological ailment? Is 39 hours of net access bad for you? Is 39 hours of TV? Is 39 hours of reading books? Is 39 hours of talking with friends? The question of pathology often becomes a question of utility. 'Addiction' best makes its case when it asks if we are addicted to the Internet or are we addicted to what is available via the Internet, the consolidation of sex, interpersonal exchanges, sports, entertainment, and even intellectual pursuits. At what point is digital life no longer so alien to real life that we insist upon our division of the two? When does digital no longer represent the Other of myth and human psychology?
While I think the focus on Social Networking obscures the full extent of Internet culture currently available, it does offer a nice progression from the MUDs that concerned 'Life on the Screen' to the Pop fascination with Zuckerberg; in essence, the progression of topics illustrates the abandoning of Otherness we see in the Internet.
In 'Life' we see a look at the early fears of the Internet. False representations of self or the diluting of identity. We thought that playing pretend in text chats would threaten in ways that playing pretend as children did not. However, we tended to forget that we, even as adults, play pretend when we perform plays, recite our favorite movie lines, dress for Halloween, go on interviews or first dates. The self has always been transient, but the Internet allowed us to experience this anew - and the first time we try something new, it's always a kick in the pants.
'Life' brings up important concerns about self, but these are concerns regardless of how we pretend. At least online, we can examine the relative nature of such pretending. As 'Life' points out, the Internet makes deconstructing identity visible and apparent to the average user. But the difference between online and offline is not that we do not deconstruct identity offline, it's that we do not see it so easily offline.
The majority of these articles then move on to social networking. Social networking drives hits and usage, so it receives a lot of attention. In many ways social networking might be the first Pop Hit of the Internet, taking it mainstream (in the US and a select number of other countries). It's seems odd to talk about taking the Internet mainstream, but that's exactly what the articles in Wired and even the MSU study are actually talking about. Hitting the 18-24 crowd hard is what makes Social Networking the only rival to online gaming for net relevance these days, especially to the all-mighty advertisers. MUDs were never seen as socially acceptable like SN is seen to be. Even MMORPGs carry certain stigmas less associated with SN sites. The social capital that the MSU study shows linked to Facebook has one singular significance, it represents the Internet's evolution from Other to Us. The cool factor of SN sites so permeates culture that they allow membership into an online community without fear of marginalization. They are core. They are us. 92% baby!
Thus evolution of MUD to SN is about studies that move from observering the Other to observing the Us. This is the key cultural importance of the Now Internet: it's increasing and pervasive social and cultural acceptance. The Internet, like language and politics and fire before it, will become the Center and reshape the Margins. All these articles point to that level of acceptance and integration. Whatever the internet offers (sex, MUDs, SN, interactive knowledge, or ideas unknown), it is something we clearly desire in mass and are eagerly ready to reshape our culture and history around it.
So I cannot tell you what the most important cultural element of technology is, but I can tell you what the most important element of transcendent technologies like language, fire, and government share with the Internet. They become institutions around which we shape the core of our culture. They become Us.
However, when something becomes Us, we often forget to examine who and what that makes Other. Wired's take on the Digital Divide is as wise as it is rare. Too often we speak proudly of 70% Net saturation and 50% broadband access. But, with the technology of the Internet quickly becoming(ed) the defining technology of our culture that means we have cast off huge segments of our one time culture as Other, not Us. Worse, many of these castoffs include traditionally marginalized groups that risk a new round of exclusion and hostility.
And there will be hostility. The Us always acts aggressively towards the Other.
Internet scholarship shows this with its nearly blind focus on the U.S. Even in the rare cases when studies occur outside the U.S. the same names are often heard - you can often simply look at the G8 as a quick reference guide. What article cited a non-Western source? A source outside the U.S.?
The Internet has become Us and the Us it has become is not inclusive, not of the world and not even of the entire U.S. The Internet has become Us, but we are not the Us of before.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Google scares me a little...
But it's the only search engine I use. It's on my toolbar. I have Gmail and iGoogle. The only map finder I like to use is Google Maps. MapQuest is just out of the question.
No matter what search engine you may prefer, one has to admit Google set the standard and is now giving everyone a run for their money with the apps they offer. After reading the Business Week article on cloud computing and Google 101, it amazing how this idea has grown and will likely be the next level of Internet usage and computing. Microsoft's attempt and merging with Yahoo, which the search engine company refused to accept, shows the industry giant in tools such as word processing is getting a little scared. Of course, Google replaced Microsoft as the leader not too long ago.
Yet, I still remain skeptical. The idea of having all my information hanging out in some server farm thousands of miles away doesn't make me comfortable. Security risks are involved. No company could be hack free. On another related tangent, Google could have all this information about me they use to tailor whatever of there's I use to my preferences or likes, just the way Gmail places ads relating to the content of email. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It's weird enough I do a vanity search (which is weird in itself) some old review I wrote as a freshman still comes up. Usually a person's Myspace profile can come up on a search, which depending on what you do in your spare time, may not be such a great thing. It's those who don't know or don't care that will have to deal with the consequences.
According to a study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in 2005, 84 percent on Internet users have used a search engine. The study did have one troubling statistic: 65 percent of people with six or more years of online experience said search engines are fair and unbiased sources of information. It found younger users were more trusting of search engine results than older users.
You have to be skeptical in order to survive on the Internet. Nothing goes unrevealed unless you stop it. Misinformation can spread like wild fire if the top search you click on is what you take as fact.
No matter what search engine you may prefer, one has to admit Google set the standard and is now giving everyone a run for their money with the apps they offer. After reading the Business Week article on cloud computing and Google 101, it amazing how this idea has grown and will likely be the next level of Internet usage and computing. Microsoft's attempt and merging with Yahoo, which the search engine company refused to accept, shows the industry giant in tools such as word processing is getting a little scared. Of course, Google replaced Microsoft as the leader not too long ago.
Yet, I still remain skeptical. The idea of having all my information hanging out in some server farm thousands of miles away doesn't make me comfortable. Security risks are involved. No company could be hack free. On another related tangent, Google could have all this information about me they use to tailor whatever of there's I use to my preferences or likes, just the way Gmail places ads relating to the content of email. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It's weird enough I do a vanity search (which is weird in itself) some old review I wrote as a freshman still comes up. Usually a person's Myspace profile can come up on a search, which depending on what you do in your spare time, may not be such a great thing. It's those who don't know or don't care that will have to deal with the consequences.
According to a study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in 2005, 84 percent on Internet users have used a search engine. The study did have one troubling statistic: 65 percent of people with six or more years of online experience said search engines are fair and unbiased sources of information. It found younger users were more trusting of search engine results than older users.
You have to be skeptical in order to survive on the Internet. Nothing goes unrevealed unless you stop it. Misinformation can spread like wild fire if the top search you click on is what you take as fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)