Lessig points out early in his piece that “Code is Law” (Lessig 18). While many definitions exist for both of these words, exponentially many more connotations are associated with any combination of those definitions. Code exists in a technological sense, shaping and bending the actions of everything in cyberspace. From RSS feeds to Facebook friend requests, World of Warcraft magic spells to Google Earth buildings, the code defines what we see and how we see it. Code also exists between people who interact in cyberspace; though this code is social in nature. This is the code that defines what “poking” on facebook really means, the code that make you mortified when you accidentally “reply to all” on a what was a secret email, the code amongst thieves on the piratebay.org asking everyone to “seed plz”. The Law exist in real life, the law that Lessig says makes you a thief if you steal a book, but an idiot if you don’t pick up a twenty dollar bill blowing past your feet on a sidewalk. The Law is also lurking in cyberspace, FBI worm viruses silently inviting itself into hardrives and searching for any illegal documents, reporting back to its superior servers.
There is a sort of decaying optimism in the book. An idea that the structure of freedom and liberty lie within the network of cyberspace and that it can be properly regulated to maintain freedom, but there is no one to trust to do this right. “Regulability” is his first concept in which he argues that it is possible to regulate the Internet. “Regulation by Code” is his second theme, where the technical code becomes the means to the end of “Regulability”. The nuts and bolts of what can and cannot be done, what factors limit the users of cyberspace. A third piece is what Lessig calls “Latent Ambiguity” where the freedom of the internet allows for the government to allow the FBI to use the aforementioned worms in order to search private data. The ambiguity coats the issues of code with layers of hazy indistinctness. The last issue is sovereignty, how can one individual, organization, or government rise above the Internet to attempt to label what is good or bad, harmful or helpful? Sovereignty on the Internet allows for a group to be legitimized, for their norms to be the final say in their space. These spaces, however are constantly overlapping in cyberspace, given that all the information is traveling the same way, and there is no enforcers to give one side the leverage of justice in hopes of being vindicated.
I believe that most of Lessigs arguments are fairly grounded. Though I’m not sure if there will ever be a time where cyberspace will become subverted through an ultimate control. I believe it will be more of the battles that we have seen in the past few years against the piratebay and the IRAA, or battles between Anonymous and the Church of Scientology or battles between the culture of democracy and the Chinese government. Where the interests of “In real life” become at odds with the interests of cyberspace and the denizens of it. They tend to be one and the same, which makes legal battles even more difficult for defendants in meat space.
A completely controlled internet creates an issue where there will always be the entrepreneurial spirit for programmers or “pirates” and “hackers”. A segment of society will always attempt to keep the internet free of controls or limitations, where the code will dictate very little, if anything.
I believe that the code of cyberspace will be very similar to the code of today’s space. In that there will be places where anonymity or pseudonymity will be an option, and places where identity will be enforced. I don’t think that Lessig ever is far off from this, the problem is that the future is anybody’s guess, so there are many possible outcomes.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Lit review (Pt. 1)
Lessig has very few detractors on the Internet, which is making my "conflict, limitation, debates or holes in the literature" part very short. Here is the first half of it though.
Lessig points out early in his piece that “Code is Law”. While many definitions exist for both of these words, exponentially many more connotations are associated with any combination of those definitions. Code exists in a technological sense, shaping and bending the actions of everything in cyberspace. From RSS feeds to Facebook friend requests, World of Warcraft magic spells to Google Earth buildings, the code defines what we see and how we see it. Code also exists between people who interact in cyberspace; though this code is social in nature. This is the code that defines what “poking” on facebook really means, the code that make you mortified when you accidentally “reply to all” on a what was a secret email, the code amongst thieves on the piratebay.org asking everyone to “seed plz”. The Law exist in real life, the law that Lessig says makes you a thief if you steal a book, but an idiot if you don’t pick up a twenty dollar bill blowing past your feet on a sidewalk. The Law is also lurking in cyberspace, FBI worm viruses silently inviting itself into hardrives and searching for any illegal documents, reporting back to its superior servers.
There is a sort of decaying optimism in the book. An idea that the structure of freedom and liberty lie within the network of cyberspace and that it can be properly regulated to maintain freedom, but there is no one to trust to do this right. “Regulability” is his first concept in which he argues that it is possible to regulate the Internet. “Regulation by Code” is his second theme, where we the technical code becomes the means to the end of “Regulability”. The nuts and bolts of what can and cannot be done, what factors limit the users of cyberspace. A third piece is what Lessig calls “Latent Ambiguity” where the freedom of the internet allows for the government to allow the FBI to use the aforementioned worms in order to search private data. The ambiguity coats the issues of code with layers of hazy indistinctness. The last issue is sovereignty, how can one individual, organization, or government rise above the Internet to attempt to label what is good or bad, harmful or helpful? Sovereignty on the internet allows for a group to be legitimized, for their norms to be the final say in their space. These spaces, however are constantly overlapping in cyberspace, and there is no enforcers to give one side the leverage of justice in hopes of being vindicated.
My full review of his book "Code" will be coming shortly.
Lessig points out early in his piece that “Code is Law”. While many definitions exist for both of these words, exponentially many more connotations are associated with any combination of those definitions. Code exists in a technological sense, shaping and bending the actions of everything in cyberspace. From RSS feeds to Facebook friend requests, World of Warcraft magic spells to Google Earth buildings, the code defines what we see and how we see it. Code also exists between people who interact in cyberspace; though this code is social in nature. This is the code that defines what “poking” on facebook really means, the code that make you mortified when you accidentally “reply to all” on a what was a secret email, the code amongst thieves on the piratebay.org asking everyone to “seed plz”. The Law exist in real life, the law that Lessig says makes you a thief if you steal a book, but an idiot if you don’t pick up a twenty dollar bill blowing past your feet on a sidewalk. The Law is also lurking in cyberspace, FBI worm viruses silently inviting itself into hardrives and searching for any illegal documents, reporting back to its superior servers.
There is a sort of decaying optimism in the book. An idea that the structure of freedom and liberty lie within the network of cyberspace and that it can be properly regulated to maintain freedom, but there is no one to trust to do this right. “Regulability” is his first concept in which he argues that it is possible to regulate the Internet. “Regulation by Code” is his second theme, where we the technical code becomes the means to the end of “Regulability”. The nuts and bolts of what can and cannot be done, what factors limit the users of cyberspace. A third piece is what Lessig calls “Latent Ambiguity” where the freedom of the internet allows for the government to allow the FBI to use the aforementioned worms in order to search private data. The ambiguity coats the issues of code with layers of hazy indistinctness. The last issue is sovereignty, how can one individual, organization, or government rise above the Internet to attempt to label what is good or bad, harmful or helpful? Sovereignty on the internet allows for a group to be legitimized, for their norms to be the final say in their space. These spaces, however are constantly overlapping in cyberspace, and there is no enforcers to give one side the leverage of justice in hopes of being vindicated.
My full review of his book "Code" will be coming shortly.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
On "Media and Behavior"
This article has me more convinced that my assignment of "code" is just as much a social one as it is a technological one. The technological code sets rules for online behavior just as much as social ones do. Since online communities are a mix both tech and individuals, the rules apply to both of them.
Pages 29 and 30 discuss professions where a persona is taken. Waiters and Doctors take a persona on when they are interacting with customers. Vernacular, posture, interaction with co-workers all change. This is exhibited everywhere online. From blogs, facebook, twitter, or any forum...rules change, personas change, identities are honed and whittled into whatever form they need to be.
The process of code will mold the frame in the future of online interactions. Dichotomies in code exist in today's fledgling social network. China and the strict law that governs every social interaction from surfing to posting, is often at odds with the rest of the worlds pirating, streaming, and updating. I think this would make a great case study for "code".
Pages 29 and 30 discuss professions where a persona is taken. Waiters and Doctors take a persona on when they are interacting with customers. Vernacular, posture, interaction with co-workers all change. This is exhibited everywhere online. From blogs, facebook, twitter, or any forum...rules change, personas change, identities are honed and whittled into whatever form they need to be.
The process of code will mold the frame in the future of online interactions. Dichotomies in code exist in today's fledgling social network. China and the strict law that governs every social interaction from surfing to posting, is often at odds with the rest of the worlds pirating, streaming, and updating. I think this would make a great case study for "code".
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
On "Web ushers in age of ambient intimacy"
This article was a great boon to defining a part of my research. The new code of the internet or user driven code creates a complete new frame for not only online interactions, but also IRL.
(From the Article)
I'd say this is indicative of the change in our social interaction. This generation is the first to concern itself with the hour by hour status of digital information. When a parent does get on facebook, we all whisper a silent prayer in hopes that our parents never join the site. Because it would change how the college or high school student would interact with their digital selfs.
(From the Article)
I think that this touches on the impact of every interaction that we create on the internet. No longer are we subjected to the code...rather we are infused with it, a part of it, assimilated by it. Our real life identity is tied so strongly with these pixels and binary bits stored on a screen or a server, that we can't look away from it. A status update becomes as normal as taking note of a windy day or the feeling of brushing our teeth. It could be noticeable, but it sinks into the background like it simply belongs.
(From the Article)
"Maintained via technology" is an interesting concept, because technology does not maintain these relationships, we do. But the author and all of us identify with technology so closely that it becomes an extension of us. It is an omni-present entity that we trust, a vanguard of our information and social lives.
(From the Article)
More examples of the the simbiance of both users and code. The digital network information is simply users and code becoming one in the same. One acting upon the other, to create a network of connections that becomes "bigger" or more meaningful than the code itself, and the code becomes as important as real life for its users.
The interaction cannot be created by the code (bots?), and the interaction could not be created simply by the user.
(From the Article)
The aforementioned is a perfect example, the code is simply that...code or a sires of symbols. This code or connection has completely taken over what might seem like a prudent emotional choice. De-friend and the symbol disappears, but then the ex is no longer survivable, symbolization without representation becomes a problem. And much like in V for vendetta, the symbol has power. Ideas have power.
Maybe rather than "blowing up a building" it could be "changing a twitter status" or "writing a note".
For many people — particularly anyone over the age of 30 — the idea of describing your blow-by-blow activities in such detail is absurd. Why would you subject your friends to your daily minutiae?
(From the Article)
I'd say this is indicative of the change in our social interaction. This generation is the first to concern itself with the hour by hour status of digital information. When a parent does get on facebook, we all whisper a silent prayer in hopes that our parents never join the site. Because it would change how the college or high school student would interact with their digital selfs.
Even the daily catalogue of sandwiches became oddly mesmerizing
(From the Article)
I think that this touches on the impact of every interaction that we create on the internet. No longer are we subjected to the code...rather we are infused with it, a part of it, assimilated by it. Our real life identity is tied so strongly with these pixels and binary bits stored on a screen or a server, that we can't look away from it. A status update becomes as normal as taking note of a windy day or the feeling of brushing our teeth. It could be noticeable, but it sinks into the background like it simply belongs.
My overall...number is thus 301: Facebook (254) + Twitter (47), double what it would be without technology. Yet only 20 are family or people I'd consider close friends. The rest are weak ties — maintained via technology.
(From the Article)
"Maintained via technology" is an interesting concept, because technology does not maintain these relationships, we do. But the author and all of us identify with technology so closely that it becomes an extension of us. It is an omni-present entity that we trust, a vanguard of our information and social lives.
"I outsource my entire life," she said. "I can solve any problem on Twitter in six minutes." (She also keeps a secondary Twitter account that is private and only for a much smaller circle of close friends and family — "My little secret," she said. It is a strategy many people told me they used: one account for their weak ties, one for their deeper relationships.)
(From the Article)
More examples of the the simbiance of both users and code. The digital network information is simply users and code becoming one in the same. One acting upon the other, to create a network of connections that becomes "bigger" or more meaningful than the code itself, and the code becomes as important as real life for its users.
The interaction cannot be created by the code (bots?), and the interaction could not be created simply by the user.
She had broken up with her boyfriend not long ago, but she hadn't "unfriended" him, because that felt too extreme.
(From the Article)
The aforementioned is a perfect example, the code is simply that...code or a sires of symbols. This code or connection has completely taken over what might seem like a prudent emotional choice. De-friend and the symbol disappears, but then the ex is no longer survivable, symbolization without representation becomes a problem. And much like in V for vendetta, the symbol has power. Ideas have power.
A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world.
Maybe rather than "blowing up a building" it could be "changing a twitter status" or "writing a note".
Thursday, February 12, 2009
On "Looking Backwards, Looking Forward: Cyberculture Studies 1990-2000"
Since the popular inception of the Internet, many people have tried to characterize how it affects people's lives. While I enjoyed the concise wrap-up of the recent history of the many facets of online interactions, the topics switched quickly and I never felt like I got the "whole picture" idea of what the author was trying to convey. Some parts of the paper seemed to be interjected with a strong stance on a particular part of the Internet.
I enjoyed the "Discoursing Cyberspace" section, that began to unravel the "frontier" metaphor. This really interests me because of the rule of "cyberspace" part of the project I plan on working on.
I enjoyed the "Discoursing Cyberspace" section, that began to unravel the "frontier" metaphor. This really interests me because of the rule of "cyberspace" part of the project I plan on working on.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
On "Virtual Ethnography" and "The Wealth of Networks"
Just try to go here, and not have a train wreck reaction. A message board where there are no rules, and anonymity is almost enforced. A community where the anonymous and immediate transfer of information worldwide is just another day.
Inside of all of its cultural shock and awe chaos, there is order. A series of regimented rules and regulations, ways of stating what individuals want or "DO NOT WANT". You might read things like "TITS OR GTFO", or "Rule 34" or "OP IS GOD!!!1!"
Before beginning research, I had never been on /b/ channel or 4chan. I am fluent in LOLcat, and my Internet lingo was passable, but /b/ itself has a language all of its own. Hines, in "Virtual Ethnography" discusses how digital ethnographers have an advantage on traditional ethnographers, in that we can "Lurk" or covertly participate in cultural observations. Armed with urbandictionary.com, anyone who spends a few hours on /b/ could be participate on /b/ like a native.
Though Hines also writes about how we are not, in a purist sense, doing an "real" ethnography. The space and community exists in virtual space, and that distances us. Giving the feeling that the lurking on /b/ is "not quite" participant observation.
"The Wealth of Networks" Looks more widely at the Internet as a whole and how it effects the tech-junkie and the computer illiterate population. Benkler comments that conceptually, social norms are changing with social networking, Voip Internet phones and social information sites like wikipeida. The network of the Internet seems to keep us changing, rather than forcing us into a state of anomie.
Inside of all of its cultural shock and awe chaos, there is order. A series of regimented rules and regulations, ways of stating what individuals want or "DO NOT WANT". You might read things like "TITS OR GTFO", or "Rule 34" or "OP IS GOD!!!1!"
Before beginning research, I had never been on /b/ channel or 4chan. I am fluent in LOLcat, and my Internet lingo was passable, but /b/ itself has a language all of its own. Hines, in "Virtual Ethnography" discusses how digital ethnographers have an advantage on traditional ethnographers, in that we can "Lurk" or covertly participate in cultural observations. Armed with urbandictionary.com, anyone who spends a few hours on /b/ could be participate on /b/ like a native.
Though Hines also writes about how we are not, in a purist sense, doing an "real" ethnography. The space and community exists in virtual space, and that distances us. Giving the feeling that the lurking on /b/ is "not quite" participant observation.
"The Wealth of Networks" Looks more widely at the Internet as a whole and how it effects the tech-junkie and the computer illiterate population. Benkler comments that conceptually, social norms are changing with social networking, Voip Internet phones and social information sites like wikipeida. The network of the Internet seems to keep us changing, rather than forcing us into a state of anomie.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
