Thoughts on Readings 2/4/09

Cyberspace and The American Dream by Dyson, Gilder, et al.

This article attempted to classify the current economic phase that the United States has entered because of the advent of the Information Age. According to the article, there are 3 "waves" of economy experienced by a modern society. The First Wave economy is one where land and farm labor are the "factors of production". In a Second Wave economy, the land is still a valuable entity but the labor becomes "mass produced" around machines and larger, more autocratic industries. The so-called Third Wave economy, the central resource is information-data, symbols, culture, ideology and values.

There were some interesting ideas explored in the article. One thing that I agree completely on is the need to somehow place a value on the "intellectual property" that exists in cyberspace. In my previous career, I worked with representatives from the talent unions mostly associated with telelvision (AFTRA and WGA mainly), and this was a primary issue of contention between the producers and the union representatives and for reasons that were patently obvious. All of this creative capital is produced by writers (and sometimes by actors performing voices), put up and basically sold on the Internet, which leads to higher revenues for the producers involved. Since this was a radical new frontier, producers essentially left payments for the creators out of the equation. This issue has still not been resolved to anyone's satisfaction-and there are rumors of potential strikes in the near future unless equitable compensation is addressed for all parties involved.

Now, I would like to address a few things about the article that I vehemently DISAGREE with. In the section entitled "The Essence of Community", Dyson et al. argue that the reason behind the fraying of the social fabric of information-age society is simply because we are in the transitional stages between one society and another. It goes on to imply that this is a problem that will likely resolve itself as the next generation comes of age since they have never lived in a world without cyberspace and online socialization. This is a major oversimplification of a complex problem in my opinion.

The article goes on to say:

"Socially, putting advanced computing power into the hands of entire populations will alleviate pressure on highways, reduce air pollution, allow people to live further away from crowded or dangerous urban areas, and expand family time".

What? The most glaring problem is that advanced computing will "expand family time". How do you figure that?? If anything, social scientists are now arguing that the computer has caused families to spend LESS time together than at any point in our nation's history! So many teens are living their social lives in cyberspace to the detriment of their overall social development for interactions that occur in "real time". Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking sites are becoming the virtual "Town Square" for most teens today, and this is causing harm to their overall social maturity. Just taking a look at the amount of time teens spend on these sites will bear this idea out.

Another thing that seems ridiculous is the statement that the power of individuals to use computers will reduce air pollution. I doubt that, the evidence just doesn't support such a conclusion. Just because computers have completely transformed the way that we live our daily lives, studies have shown that Americans drive as much or more than they did 30 years ago. Pressure on the highways has INCREASED, not decreased.

The article goes on to discuss the role of government in defining property rights in cyberspace, and that this should be a "central" task of government. Since the article was written in 1996, I would note that we have many more pressing issues to address with the Obama Administration with our economic situation being what it is today.

Interesting to note that the accounting rules written for tech companies were written during the 1930's and did not account for the rapid depreciation of assets. With the rapid evolution of technologies, computer products become obsolete in a timetable that is 6 months or less. You simply cannot apply the 5 year product depreciation timetable to IT products in today's marketplace. The tax laws should be flexible enough to recognize the changing marketplace to allow for companies to decrease their losses and remain viable.

An Introduction to the Information Age by Manuel Castells-Chapter 10

An overview of the structure and dynamics of the "Network Society" as Castells terms it. He states early on that the society emerged because of the convergence of 3 independent processes:

1.) The Information Technology Revolution
2.) The restructuring of capitalism and of statism in the 1980's.
3.) The cultural social movements of the 1960's and their 1970's aftermath.

He argues that now we are living in a informational, global economy that is characterized be an uneven geography.

He believes that there is a new economic term that should be used in intellectual circles: The Fourth World. This is a world that includes most of Africa, rural Asia, Latin American shanties, South Bronx, etc. This is predominately populated by women and children. This is a world of disenfrancisement, of social polarization and social exclusion.

He also goes into a discussion of "real virtuality" in which cultural expressions of all kinds are increasingly "enclosed in or shaped by this world of electronic media". This has a potent manifestation in the world of politics, and he correctly recognizes that "the media have become the essential space of politics".

I agreed with much of what he was saying, although I have to admit to being lost by his discussion of "the redefinitions of the foundations of life, time and space". According to Castells, information technology is engaged in a "relentless effort to annihilate time". I had a problem grasping all of this, perhaps because of the lack of concrete examples to support this theory.

Digital Maoism by Jaron Lanier

A diatribe against the use of Wikipedia as a information source, and the "chaos" and "hive mentality" that it uses to create entries that in many cases contain innaccurate representations. He calles Wikipedia a "online fetish site for foolish collectivism". I think his ego is clouding his judgement. I personally find it to be a very useful tool as a graduate student-sometimes I use it to enhance my note taking-to look up something discussed in class that I am unfamiliar with-and even to refer me to additional resources for a paper I am writing. I find the links at the bottom of a Wiki entry to be VERY useful from time to time.