The Dean reading I felt like spoke a lot of truth. The internet is undoubtedly a capitalist machine disguised with a veil that looks something like freedom. Something like Putin’s Russia or Mexico.

But I do think that online activism is really powerful and that despite strenghtening the machine, working with it can work to a great advantage.  Something that I have been trying to articulate for some time now is that I think we are limiting the extent of how we can use the internet. We keep talking about the hashtag and how there is only so much that can be said in 160 characters and we fail to mention that a lot of times these tweets are a hashtag that captures the attention and a link that leads to a different medium where way more than 160 characters can be used in order to articulate an issue.

And while we are on the topic of twitter, while granted, I’m not very sure about how one goes about getting rid of the corporate filter on sites, I still think there is a huge value with live-tweeting important events that can be pooled together through a hashtag. It’s instant, usually honest, and provides multiple angles.

Dean discussed the fantasy of participation and I absolutely agree. I’m sure most people post or like things without understanding them or really caring, but as someone who is (and is surrounded by people who are) usually knee deep in distributing information and organizing, we don’t really aim for the people who just like the page. If we did, we would never get anything done because for the most of the time you can’t change people’s minds or force them to read (I don’t think this statement makes sense but what I think I mean that people who just do “like-activism” without taking action or responding usually have cookie cutter views and aren’t very flexible on them…again, from experience… But, people who learn to navigate these sites and are passionate about these issues will find each other on these sites and that’s how organizing happens.  It’s not like you can put up a sign that says “REAL ACTIVISTS ONLY” because people will still just like the page and move on, but people will find each other.

Though, honestly I don’t like to think of facebook as a site conducive to big activism (tho Arab Spring!) mostly because facebook is bilateral and is limited in that way and twitter is a multilateral.

I like the idea of a gift economy.  The thought that our greedy society could reach a point where people start giving things out without expecting some sort of payment is both amazing and baffling.

And I think I was initially going along with the idea that there was a hybrid society for the better waiting for us in the foreseeable future until we started talking about solar panels and jobs. In theory, the fact that elimination of labor cost leads towards free products to the public makes sense. If what we pay for is the labor that goes into a product (the reason why clothes made in sweatshops with horrible conditions and pay are much cheaper) then if there is no labor to pay for then the product has no cost. But this is where I got lost, and it might be because I am a pessimist or live in a country with deeply imbedded belief in capitalism, but I do not think that we are paying for labor most of the time. We pay for branding or prestige. Otherwise, why is your average UO t-shirt so gosh darn expensive when it is the same product as a blank t-shirt at half the cost?

So, I find it difficult to believe that we are moving to a world where everything is solar powered and I can get free rides from a self-driving cars because people are just too greedy and there is someone who really wants to make that profit.

And I understand that it is about changing a culture, but current events do not give me much hope for that either. I mean if we were really moving towards a gift-economy then why is the price of education going up so much? How can we be moving towards an expecting-less society when we force some of the most basic things to become luxury items?

I think the site itself is cool. Building rep sounds difficult, and honestly I would use it to provide things that I am never going to get back. I don’t know how well borrowing would work.

People don’t seem that accountable unless there is something there to keep them accountable with some sort of retribution.

Wow. I am downer.

Today I am writing about “The Matrix” which as it turns out I liked a lot more than “Her”.

The movie really spoke to me with two themes—the big one being what is reality? And the second theme was—what does it mean to be free?

The first question shouldn’t be a surprising one since it seems to be something that is asked during the majority of the film. But in the context of the discussions we’ve been having in class it really made me think about the spaces that some claim to be illegitimate realities such as different blogging platforms or other places where you can create avatars or reconstruct your identity. The scene with the man (Cypher?) who wanted to forget “reality” and go back to living in the Matrix gave me the impression that what was that his reality or the reality he chose was the Matrix.

Can we do that as well then? Certain online platforms provide a type of anonymity which allows the user to construct their true or more ideal self, sometimes entire worlds can be created (kind of reminds me of books) so is it possible that becomes reality itself or at least a form of it? If not, then why and how can we refer to virtual reality as a legitimate reality? In class it seemed that the main concern was consent or the ability to choose.

And the second theme that I mentioned I think comes from my new found fascination with Artificial Intelligence. As suggested in Turkle’s book and in the film “Her” there is the implication that humans want their robots and AI to resemble and become as human as possible. At first I thought that the notion might be an egotistical thing (and it may well be since I have yet to interview a completely sentient AI) but the idea that Agent Smith and in some ways Samantha both strive for some sort of humanness or “human possession” is absolutely fascinating. Could it be that is the major flaw in a being created by humans? Or is it that this physical reality is the only reality and no matter what the only way to be free?

I think I just dragged myself in circles but I found that film left me with lots of questions (and not the logistical ones) but I think the biggest one for me is:

Would I have taken the blue pill or the red one?

So I changed my mind and we are not talking about Furbies this week. My only comment in terms of furbies is– have you seen how much one costs?? dang.

During class, the argument kept coming up that Samantha was conscious and authentic. Solid, I can roll with that. But then that means that her disposability and commodification should cause a major concern because if we are treating Samantha as more than an “alive enough” being, then we should definitely be asking ourselves about the ethics in the treatment of Samantha. To say that we should be more concerned of how Samantha treats Theodor (Or the way in which this fully conscious technologies treat their human creators) undermines that authenticity and validity of Samantha’s existence. I know that Samantha leaves in the end, I watched the film and honestly I probably would have done the same (for the same reason that both his ex wife and Samantha left too…) but I just think it’s important we keep ourselves consistent in our treatment of Samantha for ethics sake.

It is also important to note that everything that happens in a film or any other artform is deliberate. at least if it is to mean anything. the stylistic choice to present everything under a filter that made it look like an instagram photo that is supposed to invoke some sort of nostalgia or yearning, the choice to present the protagonists as “human man” and “A.I. Woman” are deliberate in order to present a particular message. I’m curious if our reactions or if the “nostalgic” approach would have been also used if it were a “human woman” who fell in love with an “A.I. Man”. Or would we have read the whole film more as the story of a woman who needs male validation or to be in a relationship to feel complete? Would we have called their love authentic as well?

I guess this film and this week’s discussion has so far mostly left me with qustons about at what point we need to start thinking ethically about the technologies that we basically give life to?

 When it comes to technology I am never sure where I stand in terms of a “better never” or “never better” or the “ever-waser”. But so far I like the questions that I’ve begun to ponder because of the readings. My biggest imprint so far is this conversation that keeps coming up in class about progress as technology and whether technology creates its own needs as Volti suggested. I am always wary of making the claim that any particular thing is a sign of progress and I am equally wary of the implication that progress is always good.

For example, there is the argument about technology—in this case smartphones— bringing people together. That sounds absolutely great. Calling my grandmother once a month used to be a difficult and expensive ordeal for my mom back in the day, but now there’s skype and cousins with internet on their phones! I could never have dreamed about keeping constant contact with people I’ve met in my travels if it weren’t for the internet!

But it also means I don’t ever get to go home. No matter where I go, I will always have a phone in my hand. I answer e-mails all of the time. If I shut down the computer I am still answering emails on my phone. There’s this implied understanding that we will answer the message immediately even when we are off hours. If we don’t the person or people on the other side get irritated. Why? Because they know that the email has been received and can be accessed.

Of course the effect this has on me may be greater because I feel like I am dealing with more time sensitive issues. I would however, like to have a weekend off.

As for progress, I think that defining progress as advancement in material technology is dangerous and elitist. Different cultures emphasize different priorities or what kind of innovations they want to focus on. I remember a segment on Jon Stewart where they were talking about equal pay and predicting when it would happen for women, and there being a joke about how we are predicted to get flying cars first. Just because we have something shiny and new does not mean that we are progressing in a linear fashion.

Technology as progress also puts very specific countries (Western imperialist countries) as the standard. It’s kind of easy to say that you are the most advanced when you have put yourself as the ultimate goal and standard.

I was going to put a flying car image on here but non of them were aesthetically pleasing to me…

Up for next week: Tamagotchis, and we answer the question “How can a child love Furby?”