fragments given without pay to the hive

Because of this assignment, I'm checking up frequently on different technology blogs, and this article caught my attention.

A young bottle-nose dolphin was able to recognize and touch pictures on the screen to match objects he was shown. The researchers show the dolphin real objects (such as a ball, cube or plastic duck) then ask him to touch photos of the same objects on the screen. The dolphin is not being rewarded with food; he seems to want to interact with people. Researchers say that this is “an easy task for a dolphin, but it is a necessary building block towards our goal of a complete language interface between humans and dolphins.”

I wonder what the dolphins will say to us.

On to Chapter 4 ideas... Lanier moves on from discussing online identity and the changing role of technology to economic concerns for the future: what will money be?

He argues that free culture is causing disaster: degrading human expression. He claims music and newspaper-style reporting have already fallen into a “sorry state” and movies are on the same path. I'm not sure that the changes in the music industry and and news reporting are all bad. It is certainly different because there are more contributors and a greater quantity of media being produced (most of it mediocre at best). However, change isn't always bad. For the music industry, more people have the opportunity to showcase their talents (or lack thereof). This chance leads to more music, and although not all of it is good, there have been some really great discoveries.

I do agree with Lanier's ideas about advertising. Downloading and streaming have changed the way people get music. Unfortunately for musicians signed to major record labels, filesharing has led to a huge decrease in album sales. If you can get music for free, why pay for it? Overall, writers, musicians, and artists are “encouraged to treat the fruits of their intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind.” Now, artists use the Internet for self-promotion, and they make money from other avenues: endorsement deals, concerts and merchandise. For unknown artists, they are often happy enough just to have fans and get their work out and into the hive.

fragments & anonymous trolls

I came across this article this week, and it reminded me of Lanier's comment that technology is moving without considering all the effects and adapting as necessary.

I don't know if I'm surprised that children are more likely to own a cellphone than a book. It's sad, but with so many other distractions, it's hard to sit down with a book and read for a while. Manafy, an editorial director Information Today, suggests that if more children have phones, then “we need to be looking much harder at creating content optimized for this reading environment [...and create] a reading experience that coincides with their [...]shorter attention spans [...and] non-linear reading style.” Maybe parents, librarians and educators should celebrate technology like the iPad that is more conducive for reading. Hopefully, eBooks (or iBooks?) will become popular with kids, or we could be facing a wave of illiteracy in the future.

In Chapter 3, Lanier gives readers his thoughts on the perceived wisdom of crowd. We've all done it: googled a question or wikipediaed something. The idea is that the mistakes of people cancel each other out and there's correctness centred around the right answer (this is also pretty much all I remember about my stats class). The fragments we read online obscure the context and author. This ideology devalues authorship and individuality. Collectives can be just as stupid as any individual, and all collectives rely on the leadership of intellectuals and visionaries to lead them. Therefore, I agree with Lanier's opinion that quantity doesn't become quality. I can't help but think that there's about to be a whole lot more stupid questions and answers as facebook announces a new questions and answers application.

Anonymity can be one of the bad things about the internet. Not only does it reduce the cultural importance of authorship, but it also encourages trolling. People are not held accountable to what they say, and they are rarely punished or penalized for their online bullying. YouTube pseudonyms are easy to create and recreate for the purpose of posting mean comments on videos. Although there are a lot of stupid videos, it's stupider to watch them and then be mean about it! On a site like SecondLife people won't be as mean because the pseudonym comes with developed personality that isn't as disposable. It requires a lot of work to recreate.

This leads to one of the good things about the internet: online communities. For example, fan forums allow fans to communicate with one another about a shared obsession. These sites use online pseudonyms; however, they come with personalities and the people get to know each other. They are not fragments of people. Like Lanier said about the printing press, it “is not the mechanism, but the authors” who are important. The people make the forum (not the software). The software creates the opportunity, but people run and participate in the forum.

Lanier's ideas resonate with me. A number of years ago, during a special time for discussion among Harry Potter fans while we waited for the next book, I was involved with a Harry Potter fan site and forum. There were very few trolls there. I got to know people by their avatar, their username, and eventually, their REAL name. There needs to be more opportunity for this kind of interaction online. While anonymity is important for safety, too much of it gives people the freedom to let out their inner troll.
Facebook is a place where trolling has repercussions. People have to constantly manage their online reputations. After an in-class conversation about employers facebook creeping potential employees, it's clear that companies want employees who represent them well in public. In the past, this included the workplace only, and it didn't matter what employees did in their private lives as long as they did their jobs. However, many people have accepted that the online world is in the public domain. If it's online, it's not private anymore.