Stalder focuses mainly on the issue of cooperation between
what he deems the front and back ends. The front end consists of the consumers,
often painted as the heroic party, and the back end the producers. There is a
fairly basic assumption among many researchers and analysts that all of the
problems that arise between these two parties can be boiled down to
miscommunication and uncooperative action. This idea holds a very strange mix of technological determinism and personal choice in it. On one hand a person may suggest that it is the mechanism (technology) that has prohibited the free exercise of communication, while another would say it is the persons not effectively using the technology causing the communication breakdown. Seeing as I am not a technological determinist I very much side with the latter. In fact if I were to make an assumption from my own subjective perception of the world, I would say that people often use technology manipulatively to disrupt the conversation. Just like when companies pose as unassociated, anonymous users, it is dishonestly wielding the technology, not the technology itself that cause the communication breakdown.
Perhaps my favorite passage from the reading is when Stalder
writes: “…in the realm of the digital, sharing means multiplying, rather than
dividing.” (pg. 243) I’ve never truly considered this aspect that
differentiates the material world from the digital world. In an essence, there
is no physical sacrifice in the sharing act, and therefore it is much easier
and much more widely done in the digital sphere. This idea, though basic maybe,
was particularly revelatory, and will no doubt shape how I analyze these
interactions in the future.
I would like to end by commending Stalder. He consistently
exceeds at in his article is detailing all of the shifts brought upon by the
rise of Web 2.0 in neutral terms. He understands that while desire and choices do
affect the overall outcome, it is mainly regressive to attempt to categorize
one as inherently superior. All are simply tools. But what do you
think? If miscommunication is truly the issue, will increased understanding
lead to a more amicable relationship between the producers and consumers? Or will
greed and personal biases ultimately prevent true communication to flourish?
I agree that it is not the technologies that make it hard for people to be successful online. I do think that for may businesses and individuals who are trying to market themselves online, internet culture and available technologies are intimidating. People who are comfortable with old marketing strategies and perhaps even printed media struggle to fit in with online expectations and dialects. I think the main way to be successful online is to be willing to learn and create. THere are all these tools available and just because someone isn't sure how to use it doesn't mean they cant study the culture and figure it out. It seems to me that most people who struggle online are unwilling to adapt to the culture and tools.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I know a few people who are struggling to understand the available technologies and prefer to avoid these tools because they feel all the information needed to access some of these tools to be a violation of privacy. However, it is obvious to see that people who are willing to put themselves on the map and network using these tools and accessing them to the full potential end up becoming very successfull as long as they stay in the line of internet regulation policies. Those who dont risk the potential of being locked up for criminal activity online and loose the ability to teach society the loop wholes within the system that can allow the potential to create some many new things.
ReplyDelete