Month: March 2019

ATT vs Hush-a-Phone

Google vs Microsoft

Facebook vs Instagram

Monopolies are as American as apple pie. In fact, one of America’s most popular family games is centered around owning all of the competition and making others pay for services.

He who owns information controls the universe. In regards to the digital universe, Google is Oz, Mark Zuckerberg is sitting behind the green curtain, and we are deciding between which road will take us back to Kansas .

Many of us who were around when the original Facebook launched admired Zuckerberg. Generation X-ers and Millennials regarding him as a business savvy peer who created this platform where college and graduate students could network.

As Facebook became more popular, public and open, we no longer viewed Zuckerberg as a peer.  He is now a business tycoon, eager to monopolize the competition…

What’s the solution for companies who take the monopolistic approach?

Dr. Rufus Pollock suggests regulating and funding. Well, what’s the issue? It’s tricky. First, the minute someone utters the words “regulation” a panic ensues. What will that cost? Does that mean my private information becomes public?

Pollok’s solution is to regulate and fund the software that allow Zuckerberg and Google to be the sole provider of their platforms. Regulating and funding the software will allow the competition access as well so that the public can decide who gives the best option or provides a better service.

Oz is big enough for more than one person to sit behind the green curtain.

Pollock, Rufus. 2018. Open Revolution. https://openrevolution.net/media/open-revolution.pdf

Zomorodi, Manoush and Poyant, Jen. 2018. ZigZag Podcast Season 2 Episode 11: If Capitalism and Socialism Had a Baby. https://zigzagpod.com/2018/12/20/s2-ep11-if-capitalism-and-socialism-had-a-baby/

Monopolies are a recurring point of contention that seems to rear its ugly head with societal technology changes. Today it’s Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Previously, it was AT&T, Standard Oil, and U.S. Steel. What I found interesting in Pollock’s The Open Revolution was its affect on my perception of a monopoly, and his shift from power in money (although money is a component) to power in attention (his italics). The three mentioned above do indeed monopolize our attention, at least as far as the internet is concerned. (Netflix is also a primary player in attention grabbing, but Amazon is doing what it can to mitigate their power.) If you’re not on all three of the aforementioned platforms, most of us are at least using one. You might not use Facebook or Amazon, but it highly unlikely that you aren’t using Google at least periodically. I couldn’t begin to guess how I often I use Google each week.

Big corporations have changed the physical landscape of America. I first noticed it with corner grocery stores. Growing up in the city there were several small ‘mom and pop’ shops on virtually every corner, but with the increase in mobility and cheaper prices at chain stores, they slowly started to disappear. Now the digital landscape is going through a similar change, not only affecting the online world but also the physical one. Big digital companies are absorbing, and sometimes cannibalizing, small endeavors online just like corner stores were lost to the chain takeover, but is an “Open World” (5) the answer?

“In an Open world we would pay innovators and creators more and more fairly, using market-driven remuneration rights in place of intellectual property monopoly rights” (7). Pollack speaks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) using machines to eliminate mundane tasks (jobs) to free up our time for more pleasant things. The idea sounds fantastic, but with all the technological innovations we have already instilled to make our lives easier, we have only found ourselves busier. The washing machine, the dishwasher, the car, all provide easier means with which to accomplish these mindless chores, or decrease travel time, and yet we are more time-starved than ever. In addition, if AI eliminates some of the work venues or relegates the human labor pool to people vying for a limited amount of jobs, we may find ourselves still, maybe even deeper into a monopoly. A monopoly of another name, or with another mission, yet still is a big corporation that leaves the little guy in the dust.

After reading about the Cambridge Analytica scandal any ambivalence that I felt in regards to Facebook is all but gone. Even prior to reading about the scandal I was paranoid enough to add only the required information when I set up my mandated work account. I have zero interest in being “discovered” by old acquaintances, schoolmates, co-workers and etc.  Jeong’s article served to substantiate my claims that Facebook and many of the other various social media platforms only serve to stunt social skills.  Her mention of students suspending their accounts during finals also proves that often times people will neglect responsibilities in the name of social media because apparently, it is just that addictive. They cannot trust themselves enough to stay away even when the stakes are obviously high.

I found humor in the Facebook security teams dodging responsibility in that they did not do any investigative work before verifying her account, instead, they called their error in judgment a,  “bug discovery”.  I would definitely be someone that would never have a verified account even with millions of followers because I feel as though the verification process would make me vulnerable to being hacked.

Work Cited

      Jeong, Sarah. “I Tried Leaving Facebook. I Couldn’t.” The Verge, The Verge, 28 Apr. 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/4/28/17293056/facebook-deletefacebook-social-network-monopoly.

Jeong tried leaving Facebook but couldn’t. Why? Was it because there was too much free information?

When Pollock wants creators to be rewarded through a collective of sorts, but it doesn’t seem to happen … why? Is it because we like the current system?

It’s interesting to think that we have found ourselves at a crossroads between information, capitalism, freedom, monopoly, privacy, publicity, rights, social needs, and identity. There’s a lot going on. Yet a common thread emerges.

Pollock’s utopian-ish assertion that creators should monetarily benefit from their work through a tax-funded system arbitrated by a government body that divvies rewards based upon value seems a stretch to accomplish. It’s not impossible. Marx would agree (and I don’t write that with Libertarian disdain). The workers put forth their work for the good of all. The workers get paid their portion.

Pollock makes a sound argument that government is already established and, to a large degree, trusted (for lack of a better word). He logically posits that this body is already bestowed by the people with the powers to perform the function of rewarding creators so that information could be free. That free-flowing information might accelerate the cross-pollination of ideas, inventions, cures, and more. It’s a grand and beautiful vision.

There is one problem.

Capitalism outpaces this idea with the promise of winning. (Not in the Charlie Sheen sense of winning, but not far off.) Something interesting was birthed during the great experiment that became the United States and spread to other countries. Perhaps intentionally, capitalist concepts tapped into a deep-seeded desire to achieve and, through the course of decades, that desire seems to have proven itself more resilient, more innately human than cooperativeness and greater-good concepts. It fuels itself, after all, with stories of success publicized now constantly in every minute of our day.

When the evolution of computers and the internet and cell phones and data meets capitalist concepts, we get Facebook. After all, it’s a place where the information appears free. It’s volunteered, at least. The creators are being rewarded with a service that makes their lives easier, as Jeong attests. Facebook rewards participants with a service they want. Facebook is rewarded for selling the information users provide.

At first read, Pollock and Jeong appear to be talking about separate things. Pollock describes information of value to society. Jeong describes information of value to the singular person. Both are commoditized in our digital economy. Societal information is copyrighted, patented, and held secret to be sold and licensed under contract … because the creators (or the creators’ employers) understand its intrinsic value. Personal information is volunteered on social networks without much thought … because the creators see it as having little value.

The two concepts, set within the current context of a senator’s recent push to breakup platforms on the basis of antitrust law and the European Union’s passage of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), appear to be fusing. If history is our teacher (though it’s arguable if we ever learn from it), the ability of capitalist societies to evolve may be one of their core strengths.

When the government protects the data privacy of its citizens, do the citizens then see it as valuable? Is that what it takes? It might be easy, after all, to imagine the trial lawyer commercials asking us to join class action suits due to a breach in our privacy. Those commercials would pin a numerical value on how much our data is worth as they promise us settlement money. Would Facebook then pay us to participate?

I’m not sure this scenario is any more likely than voiding copyright law with the promise of dividends paid to creators. But some scenario must play out.

It makes me wonder, has an entrepreneurial wiz already imagined ways to capitalize on data from the consumer perspective? Are we looking toward a world that offers us free devices and credits in exchange for being analyzed?

The Europeans have historically been able to take U.S. ideas and build hybrid versions that reap the benefits of capitalist and socialist concepts. GDPR fits within that notion. Within that framework, companies are free to do business, but individual privacy has value.

State side, a similar set of ideas is gaining a political toehold. Social capitalists are winning office and winning audiences. We have yet to see if they’ll win houses of congress, judicial seats, and the ever-coveted bully pulpit.

All the while, Chinese and Russian citizens are portrayed as people who have very little freedom. This is true in many respects, especially when it comes to politics. But if they were free, would that mean they could post whatever they want on Facebook? Is that really freedom?

Pollock’s ideas ring nothing short of noble in spirit. Jeong’s laments are tangible and real. Both authors describe information as something of value.

Reading Pollock makes me want to send thank you notes to every person who has ever created a seed bank, fought for public water rights, and cleaned a national park. Reading Jeong makes me want to quit Facebook (and I already have).

I work in a global company where GDPR has had a tremendous impact on the way it conducts business. Changing the laws has an impact. Will it take changing laws to remind citizens that their data has value?

When citizens see that their data has value, can it ever be free?

 

References

Pollock, Rufus. 2018. Open Revolution. https://openrevolution.net/media/open-revolution.pdf

Jeong, Sarah. 2018. “I tried leaving Facebook. I couldn’t.” The Verge.  https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/28/17293056/facebook-deletefacebook-social-network-monopoly

After listening to Zomordi and Poyant’s podcast I am convinced that there probably never be fair play in the digital world.  As long as our government seeks to regulate as opposed to moving to a required open data/source movement the larger companies will continue to amass more wealth and influence which in turn will allow them to gobble up their competition.  I agree with Rufus when he proposed his version of a competitive market by having digital companies open their software to even the playing field.  I just don’t think that that will ever happen.

His example of a demand-driven market seemed akin to meritocracy.  I’m all for a demand-driven market and having the best producer of a service compensated for their work if the playing field is even.  Thinking of an even playing field I can recall working for a mobile company when it was in the process of acquiring one of its competitors and one of their marketing strategies was to persuade customers of their competitor that this acquisition would greatly benefit them.  The truth is that the customers did not receive better service the acquisition was simply embarked upon to do as Rufus stated to neutralize their competition.  New services and products were not implemented, there was zero innovation.  In fact, the customers of the acquired company actually lost many of the perks that they enjoyed prior to the acquisition.

Work Cited

Zomorodi, Manoush and Poyant, Jen. 2018. ZigZag Podcast Season 2 Episode 11: If Capitalism and Socialism Had a Baby.  https://zigzagpod.com/2018/12/20/s2-ep11-if-capitalism-and-socialism-had-a-baby/

I don’t think that meritocracy is a legitimate term.  In the previous chapters, this term was debunked before it was even discussed.  In order to have the best and the brightest everyone has to have the same opportunity to access the education required to be the best and the brightest.  Clearly, ambition is not always taken into account when assigning such titles.  I think that this term is simply “corporate speak” for we tried.

Work Cited

Wachter-Boettcher, Sara. Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic Tech. W.W. Norton and Company, 2018.  Chapter 9

When I think of hackers I think of someone hiding in a dark room, in an undisclosed location.  I think that most people may share this same vision.  Hackers are seen by most as some sort of illicit hobby.  Naturally, I was intrigued by this article.  Hackers in general usually invoke some sort of fear in most people.  They give people a sense of insecurity, we feel vulnerable. Parrish sought to normalize the role of hackers in a sense.  She went as far as to revise the ethics of a hacker.

There was one section that I could completely identify with, and this was the section that mentioned transcription.  I have a little experience with a couple of transcription apps.  I used them last semester to transcribe interviews, and I completely agree that transcribing is not an exact science so to speak.  I found that the diction, dialect, rate, pitch, and inflection made the transcription process difficult for the apps that I used.

Work Cited

     Parrish, Allison. 2016. “Programming is Forgetting: Toward a New Hacker Ethic.” Open Hardware Summit presentation

 

It was refreshing, yet disturbing to see a lot of the experiences that I’ve had in print.  It was refreshing because it validated my concerns and experiences with gender and racial bias’. On the other hand, it was also disturbing because there were far too many examples of how gender and racial biases shape workplace experiences for many. I’ve shared with colleagues from other schools how the boys at my school are definitely being programmed to believe that they are the best and the brightest despite there being little if any evidence to support this notion.  There are many bright and capable girls and minorities that do fit this description, but they are not being touted as the best. They rarely ever seek out positions of leadership (class president, student council president, and etc) because it is understood that they will not get elected. They usually choose the lesser roles (secretary, reporter, and etc.). This mentality was foreign to me when I first started at the school. I questioned it and was told by co-workers that they simply don’t apply or run for these positions.  When I questioned the kids they told me that they knew they would never get it, because the popular boys always get these roles. I also found that such positions were also part of family dynasties. In order for outsiders to truly understand the lunacy of this concept, it must be noted that this is a middle school. This whole family dynasty thing has infiltrated the school faculty. The student of the year is always teacher nominated and selected, and of course, in keeping with the local culture, it is always a white male.

Being a black female I’ve always felt like what Wachter-Boettcher describes as a “culture misfit”.  I am currently the only black middle school core teacher (there are two others: 1 elementary, and a gym coach) at my school, and I so don’t fit in.  I am not interested in getting drunk at the school Christmas party, and riding four-wheelers or showing my breasts to my colleagues once I’ve overindulged. Of course, I am not invited to all of the Friday night hangouts, when all of the real school decisions are made, apparently, only those that are willing to get drunk are worthy enough to attend.  I am certainly not a “culture fit”. Quitting is not an option for me as it was for the women interviewed, I’ll continue to request a transfer as I do every year. I guess I fit into the “edge case” category. I strive to be the Shonda Grimes of my school every year, but unfortunately, I am met with the great resistance.

Work Cited

     Wachter-Boettcher, Sara. Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic Tech. W.W. Norton and Company, 2018. Chapters 1-3

Online and offline Identities are essentially interchangeable. The two identities are in essence static, they are only visible in key situations.  While offline any characteristics that may be seen as undesirable in particular settings may be suppressed the characteristics of that identity is still present.  The use of anonymity simply provides a sense of security to allow certain perceived unacceptable behaviors or opinions to be expressed without fear of retribution.  As Philips and Milner put it on page 72, the two identities can be viewed as ambiguous masks. Although I view the masks as interchangeable the ambiguity is still present. Which of our two identities is our true identity? After reading this chapter one thing has become clear to me I don’t control my mask as I initially thought I did.  I thought that having an anonymous online account on a social media platform (Instagram) meant that I controlled my mask but by virtue of the fact that my profile is anonymous means that I, in fact, do not control my mask.  I feel as though I am forced to be anonymous simply to be able to enjoy and like pop culture posts. Fear of being misunderstood for following and leaving laughing emojis under the posts a teacher created page that pokes fun of the occupation is one of the driving forces behind my anonymous profile.  

Work Cited

    Phillips, Whitney, and Ryan M. Milner. The Ambivalent Internet: Mischief, Oddity, and Antagonism Online.

Are Digital Trends Infiltrating our Ethical “Firewalls”?

Parish praises Steven Levy, the author of Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Although he uses the term loosely in efforts to draw readers in to purchase a book or enroll in a course about computer programming, I found the negative connotation followed by Hacker Ethics ironic and somewhat problematic:

• Access to computers should be unlimited and total.
• All information should be free.
• Mistrust authority—promote decentralization.
• Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race or position.
• You can create art and beauty on a computer.
• Computers can change your life for the better.

Since the early 80s, computer hacking has cost companies millions each year and has even resulted in violations of consumer privacy. And here we are….

Although, I agree that continuous computer programming is necessary. There is value in taking systems apart and understanding how they work.  However, in this social media  climate where things are easily taken out of context, over looked, underestimated, and under-researched, a brief education to the masses on what constitutes as legal computer activity would add value to this article as well.

Because social media encourages people to share information, even students as young as middle schoolers are encouraged to be digital citizens who comment on cultural, social, and political concerns in global and local communities.

Likewise, Beck’s article focus on expanding rhetoric and composition so that that students can explore writing for digital algorithmic surveillance trends.  On one hand, this makes sense. Beck makes strong arguments. By drawing attention to student participation in computer-mediated environments, we are able expose the inequalities that thrive in online spaces.

One the other hand, personalized and self-generated algorithms store one sided information over time, thus deeming the data harvested limited, biased, and onside. This would also limit a person’s ability to view political, social, and cultural ideas objectively.

There are no shortages of one sided views and rhetoric; however, responsible instruction and critically analysis of the legitimacy of rhetoric is always valuable to the composition community.

Beck, E. (2017). “Sustaining Critical Literacies in the Digital Information Age: The Rhetoric of Sharing, Prosumerism, and Digital Algorithmic Surveillance.” Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/social/chapter2.pdf

Parrish, A. (2016). “Programming is Forgetting: Toward a New Hacker Ethic.” Open Hardware Summit presentation.  Retrieved from  http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting-new-hacker-ethic/

Wachter-Boettcher, S. (2017). Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased Algorithms, and other Threads of Toxic Tech.)