Code 2.0: Regulating Social Interactions

Oppressive government regulation in cyberspace may not be a matter of if, but a matter of when.  If you are of the camp that it has already emerged, then the focus shifts to the extent to which regulation will grow.  This regulation typically comes cloaked in a guise of protection—being able to produce or maintain our safety and security.  In these moments, privacy becomes inversely proportional to the amount of regulation present, and it seems that we are more than willing to give it up.

The traditional question of “privacy” was the limit to the law placed upon the ability of others to penetrate your private space.  From the perspective the law, it is the set of legal restrictions on the power of others to invade a protected space.  Those legal restrictions were complemented by physical barriers.  Digital technologies have changed those protections (Lessig, 201).

Perhaps it’s the semantics that get us all mixed up. Regulation implies some sort of order and general well to do for the participants, whereas control has connotations of something forced, something beyond our means.  And coupled with the idea that cyberspace is both simultaneously utopian yet inherent with deviants and mischievousness, the idea of increased regulation becomes polarized—either wholly ignored or desired by any means necessary.  And while I think cyberspace is a massive storage unit for information, I also assume that most of that information isn’t free, or at least the powers that be, don’t want it to remain that way. So, in our current models of commerce and competition, regulation in cyberspace serves as a way to control productivity and profitability.  What I am interested in is the propensity for regulation to manipulate code and networks to force adverse social interactions between different groups.

In the 1940s and 1950s we experienced, “White Flight,” in which there was a large-scale migration of white folks from urban areas to more racially homogenous (white) suburbs.  In many cases, there was also direct regulation and exploitation of housing markets through redlining, mortgage discrimination, and racially restrictive covenants.  In 2006 we started noticing this same phenomenon, online.  “Over time this [once] space of equality has been displaced by economic zoning that aim at segregation” (Lessig, 220). High numbers of white teenagers “upgraded” to Facebook from Myspace, and while of course there were design aesthetics at play, there was an overwhelming rhetoric of race and class in the motivations for the network shift.

Dana Boyd Discusses Digital ‘White Flight’ on CNN

From the clip with Danah Boyd, as well as by reading the full length article in Digital Race Anthology, we see that a lot of students were motivated by pressure from peers.  What would happen if this pressure could be artificially created by cyberspace regulators?  I’ve mentioned “Digital Affirmative Action”  as a way to increase an individual or group’s positional equity in the network, but even I can admit that this also has the potential to turn into a sort of Old Boy’s Club, where those in power directly influence the network dynamics.  “All social hierarchies require information before they can make discriminations of rank.  Having enough information about people required, historically, fairly stable social orders” (Lessig, 221).  The ability to profile in cyberspace changes all of this.  “An efficient and effective system for monitoring makes it possible once again to make these subtle distinctions of rank.  Collecting data cheaply and efficiently will take us back to the past” (Lessig, 221).  When our code is regulated and our digital whereabouts tracked we leave clues around cyberspace that can be aggregated and used against us.  This system design “permits the re-creation of systems of status. They make discrimination possible because they restore information that mobility destroyed” (Lessig, 221).

While the Myspace vs. Facebook shift does not seem like a pressing issue, and still others have denied it altogether, it serves as an example for what could happen to social relationships and structures if government or corporations are able to yield this kind of power in regulating cyberspace.

Reframing the Copyright Debate

One of the most fascinating dilemmas of being both simultaneously young in this time period and studying emerging media discourse is being in a constant state of digital moral conflict. My personal interactions with film, music, and art sometimes go against my more academic understanding of issues of copyright and fair use.  As Larry Lessig has mentioned, it’s often easier (though more dangerous) to be on the extremes of these conflicts. Either we pirate all media without consideration, or hoard it and go after even the slightest misuse of a work. Neither perspective seems conducive to promoting collaboration or fostering creativity.

I argue that judgments on what is or is not copyright infringement have been made so hastily largely because most of our debates center on works of entertainment where the original version is actually very obviously used in the remediations.  So, our focus stops being about what the remediated version does to our understanding of the original piece, but about whether the artist should have the right to do this and if so, at what cost.  This is primarily the case when we look at sampling in music:

The Isley Brothers, “Between the Sheets” – 1983

Notorius B.I.G, “Big Poppa” – 1995

Gwen Stefani, “Luxurious” – 2005

We see the original Isley Brothers piece and it is undeniably present in both Notorious BIG and Gwen Stefani. But what if we spent less of our energy harping on this point and instead examined the ways in which each artist appropriates the latter’s.  How is sexuality expressed in each of these songs? Gender? What does cross genre use of the original song due to foster dialogue between once separate groups?  Perhaps we’re looking at this debate all wrong. Actually, what if it isn’t a binary debate at all, but more a discussion, of how we can recycle, reuse, and remix previous works to create new thought provoking pieces.

This concept has been thriving in the works of many African American appropriation artists.  There are icons such as Romare Bearden who began using pop culture images in collages in the 1930s as social commentary.  This form of artistic re-creation was used more recently in the late 1980s by Carrie Mae Weems in her collection Ain’t Jokin’ where she mixed original photography with common racist jokes to create a very startling juxtaposition of what these jokes mean and who they’re actually representing. Hebru Brantley is currently mixing pop culture logos and references with classic Black paintings and drawings to create something uniquely his own.

Hebru Brantley "Sponsored by Kool-Aid"

Taking a more controversial approach to the act of appropriation art was Michael Ray Charles in the 1990s with his series of works depicting notable racially stylized images of African Americans and remediating them with his own new text.

Michael Ray Charles, "(Forever Free)" Buy Black!

Michael Ray Charles, "(Forever Free) Art n American"

Michael Ray Charles, "(Forever Free) Hello I’m Your New Neighbor"

His pieces of course spark debate, but with them, we’re able to move from a surface copyright discussion on whether or not the original creators of the images should get some kind of recognition, but instead what Charles’s new versions say about the works and say about society, and politics, and economics, and community.

I think there’s a fine line between perpetuating something and questioning something. I like to get as close to it as possible in order, I guess, to create that tension, to evoke thought and to have people question how they deal with these images. –Michael Ray Charles

Minority Minorities: Group Polarization

Creating or maintaining a group identity can be both profoundly reassuring and unequivocally dangerous.  For example, a group of individuals sharing predilections for recycling and reusing would amass no real threat and we might applaud them for their group mindset of being environmentally conscious.  On the other hand, a set of individuals that group around mutual feelings of entitlement and paranoia are potentially setting themselves up to become something very hateful and corrupting to larger systems of discussion and democracy.  And while groups, in general, might simultaneously engender and reinforce homogeneity, they can also provide a safe—or just, existing—environment for those that would not otherwise be heard as individuals.  But what happens when you have and even desire a group identity for cultural reasons, but do not agree or support (all of) the political and social positions within that group?

For many, Black identity has come to be seen as something very concrete and notoriously unyielding to change, especially on issues of religion and sexuality.  Both of which have direct correlations to political participation.  Due to the strength of the group, you have to wonder to what extent the minority within the minority can actually be heard without facing ostracism by their own group or inadvertent inclusion by another.  Yes, it is very much possible to have dual or multiple identities when the connections are for less serious groups, but with race—whether social construction or not—is the luxury of temporary dissociation even available?  I cannot remove my physical “blackness,” so whether I actively want to be a part of the group and assume its identity becomes somewhat irrelevant if I am automatically included and given its attributes.  So, in this instance, political participation most certainly has the capability of becoming that of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Literally or figuratively, you find yourself saying, “Well, my racial group disproportionately or historically or most frequently votes in this way, so let me continue that, because my identity with this group supersedes that of any others I may belong to.”  And I know this because it is reinforced daily from within and outside of the group.  Now, whether this is fair or accurate or problematic or insignificant is a topic for another day, but when we examine groups defined by race, that becomes the main characteristic around which we base their identity.   

Although I have written about the dystopian state of the Internet in response to early 90s expectations, even I cannot deny that there are certain levels of anonymity that exist on the Internet and so when you remove this visual element perhaps it is possible for the minority within the minority to act outside of their group identity.  Of course, with the ever-increasing presence of webcams, YouTube, photo albums, and geolocation applications, that anonymity slowly fades and once again whether you oblige or not, your group identity is determined by your race. And yes, if you have read through my other blog posts, there is a disparity in who gets this judgment.

So, how do we fight both (1) the desire to group and (2) the tendency to define an individual only in terms of the group?  Increased options and structured diversity in the information we consume are two possible considerations. However, they are only possible insomuch as we can begin to break down our dependency on flocking to birds of a feather and decreasing polarization between groups and individuals.

Delicious Plagiarism

Copyright and plagiarism have always been two concepts where we teeter on understanding and confusion.  I would assume this is a normal and common occurrence for most people because laws change (without public notification) and the extent to what we deem is up for ownership also changes.  So for now, like “A Fair(y) Use Tale” describes, we recognize that books, music, film, and image can be copyrighted but as far as the ideas behind those mediums, they are up for grabs.  For the most part, this sounds nice, that ideas cannot be owned and therefore there aren’t limits on who can use those ideas. The problem arises when the ideas are sort of stellar enough to be used in a way that could incite recognition or praise from another.  Then we are quick to say, “That was MY idea.”  But if we are still defining copyright in terms of the medium, what happens when a transgression occurs and it is not in one of the established media formats?

For two Top Chef: All Stars contestants this issue arose in the form of “Oystergate 2011.”  Richard brought along a notebook of recipes and ideas (Although I do believe this is against Top Chef rules) that he happened to share with Mike one night. During the next morning’s challenge, one of the ideas from Richards’s book made its way onto Mike’s station. He actually ended up winning the challenge.

So, there are several things to consider here:

• Does actively choosing to share your idea with someone act as implied permission for that the other person to use and refashion your idea? In this case, Mike was not secretly reading through Richard’s notebooks.

• I would imagine that every good or great chef tweaks recipes slightly to make them their own. Burgers are nothing new, but of course you have had different tastes and qualities. Perhaps, because the burger isn’t considered fine dining or has become so common place, we don’t mind the constant idea stealing.  Mike did not copy Richard’s recipe exactly as it was. While it’s clear that he didn’t come up with the basic idea on his own, does creating new flavors and presentation make it something new and unconnected to the original?

• Of course, there is the obvious issue of economic gain. In this case, Mike did win $5,000 for this particular challenge. Had the dish been terrible, would Richard have been so upset?

Top Chef contestants Carla and Tiffany, shocked, when they hear of Oystergate.

It’s also worth mentioning that when the other chefs found out about this recipe mishap, the majority of them were appalled, going so far as to call this “Chef Law” and “Chef Code”—stating that taking someone else’s recipe or idea is “something you just don’t do.” (Gasp!)

Although, it’s my personal opinion, that Mike was not at fault because there is no way to determine that Richard was the original holder of the idea, I do think the bigger issue up for debate here is whether or not we need to start expanding our definitions for copyright.  Many chefs consider their work just as artistic or poetic as a painter or writer, so should they have some form of protection? It exists for major food giants I suppose in trademarks, but can we make tastemarks?

Making the Individual Viral

In most traditional programs you’re free to study and write about decade’s old work and largely the original hypothesis and questions remain relevant.  With emerging media and digital humanities, however, timely information makes a world of difference. Digital environments and attitudes change so rapidly that even the slightest lag time can make once eye opening blog pieces seem obvious and common place.  When reading “The Secret Strategies of Many ‘Viral’ Videos”  this is exactly what I experienced, as it was written in 2007 and I felt the little 90s girl inside of me screaming, “Well, no duh!”

I have talked about the power of viral video before as it pertains to racial representation, but “Secret Strategies” explores the business behind the videos.  Dan Ackerman Greenberg discusses how he and his company have been the silent partners behind many popular YouTube videos. They were responsible for increasing a video’s number of views, and ultimately the revenue or interest in whatever or whomever was being depicted.  As Ackerman Greenberg directly mentions that his clients included “two top Hollywood movie studios, a major record label, a variety of very well known consumer brands, and a number of different startups, both domestic and international” it doesn’t take a large leap of the imagination to recognize that all of these groups would benefit (economically) from employing  this firm’s strategies.

Of course, there’s this sense that YouTube was created and should be maintained as a haven for the amateur, but even this has been manipulated into a marketing technique.  So, with my 2011 cap of curiosity (or cynicism) firmly on my head, I wonder if these same strategies can be or already have been used to further the awareness of individuals.  As someone that isn’t yet doing the work they desire and is a little unsure of how to effectively enter the arena, having a video résumé that “accidentally” found its way onto the computers and phones of people with power, would be very beneficial.  And I am just interested in academia.  I can only imagine how valuable of a tool this could be for people that want to be in entertainment—not just the act of having a video, but choosing to let someone or some company, by no acts of random spontaneity, turn their video into a phenomenon.

One area that was not addressed by Ackerman Greenberg, which may just be my own area of interest coming to the surface, is to what extent the above is possible—a video becoming viral—for all individuals or companies.  Can something be so marginalized that even with serious strategy could either not attract hoards of viewers, or at least the demographic you’re looking for or has the ability to want your product after the video ends?

Net PRIVILEGE Delusion

To say something to the effect of “we all grew up differently / we all were taught different lessons / we all came from different cultural upbringings” is not inventive or poetic in any sense.  Whether you’re acutely aware of your status as an outsider of a group, or are so central that you only notice difference as a contrast to what doesn’t resemble you, to some degree you’re aware that homogeneity is not a constant.

The cyber utopian belief that the internet would turn us into über tolerant citizens of the world all too eager to put our vile prejudices on hold and open up our minds to what we see on our monitors has proved to be unfounded.

With the internet, we naively (though harmlessly) assumed that our presence would placate these differences—that participation on the web would be so strong of an identity marker, that real world factors would become irrelevant.  Instead, in seeking familiarity or predictability perhaps, we brought our offline selves, online, and deraticalized any sense of a global space of tolerance and justice.

Now, a picture of doom and gloom is definitely not what I am trying to create and I don’t think the internet is a big racist / classist / sexist jumble of ignorance (all of the time).  However, past or present, we shouldn’t lean on it without examining the ways in which our own use impacts social relations on the web.

In most cases the only people who still believe in the ideal of an electronic global village are those who would have become tolerant cosmopolitans even without the internet: the globetrotting intellectual elite.  They are much more likely to use the internet to rediscover their own culture—and dare we say their own national bigotry.

Again, we have to stop looking at the Internet as something separate from human experience, but rather, as a tool that helps facilitate it.  And maybe this means people have to become more aware of their place and impact in the network, which isn’t an easy task, especially when you occupy a well connected space where what you do on the Internet is directly visible to three degrees.  Furthermore, you would have to look (wait for it) beyond yourself at the other nodes in the network and not only understand what it means to occupy their position, but to some extent want to alter it, so that as a whole we practice mindful interaction.

Tim Wise is most famously known for his work on discussing and addressing white privilege, and I think this same model could be used to examine network dynamics on the Internet.  Not all absence of diversity is due to malicious decision making, but aloofness due to network privilege.

Hip Hop’s Dilemma

What’s mine is mine

Including my music

Down to the hook / beat / melody / medium

But never mind the message

Ignoring it like we do the other issues

Because this is feel good music

No time for that Eco / environmental / energy efficient

(Privileged) stuff

As a whole we had none

And still continue to have none

So how you figure I ride for your cause now?

Oh, hip hop, how I loved you early

But we were both new

And young

And broke

So I let you get away with that smooth talk

That political talk

That how do I make my sistas and brothas lives better talk

But now

I’m in control though

Aware of my avarice

But I prefer to say my preference

Preferring the finer things / the shiny things / the disposable things

Oh, hip hop, they thought you would be thrown away too

But you stuck around teaching ghetto economic lessons

So now every time I come around your city bling bling

And I accept this

Torn between knowing better

And just not really giving a damn

Because the lifestyle you lead

Looks far better than what I have going on

Problematic?

Maybe.

Constantly comparing characteristics of your life to mine

Because what you have I don’t have

But I can buy it

Please just tell me where to buy it

Borderline masochism

Making, no forcing, me to be aware of my “lack of”

Oh, hip hop

There’s a thin line between love and hate

But the line began to blur

Somewhere between bottle poppin and buyin out the club

It’s getting harder for me to tell what’s real

So I’ll just take it all as worthy

Worthy of imitation / reiteration / duplication / amplification

You see,

And I cannot be asked to stunt softer

I’m a hustler baby, I just want you to know

It’s not about my brain / but just spending this dough

But don’t look at me with those judging eyes

Like poor little hip hop girl

Isn’t this just the dream

Our dream

The American dream

This is success

Get money

Get attention

Get recognition

Get validation

Get more money

Oh hip hop, we’re stuck in this never ending loop

Remixing and remediating selfish consumption

To people (by choice or by circumstance) without ability

To discern borrowed chains and rented mansions

But what do I expect when

Money as the root of all evil

Might be far too simple

What are we doing with our checks?

Oh, hip hop

Making it rain at the strip club

Only creates thunderstorms of missed opportunity

(And paper cuts in unmentionable places)

Can’t afford milk and eggs

But I identity with Jacob the jeweler

Maybe if this is only a he thing

Then this materialism thing

Is a man thing

Not a woman thing

A you thing

Not a me thing

But in our quest to be independent

We just acquired more and more things

On budgets made of shoe string

Who cares! Got me a certified VBS diamond ring

Oh hip hop, to be one of the boys

I just have to shop like them

Can’t talk like them

Walk like them

Or have sex like them

But there’s equality in exploitation

Economically speaking

Taking care of school / work / household

Is good

But not good enough

So instead ill get my hair did

My nails did

Feet did too

And this makes me

Unfortunately this is not a him versus her

Or what is versus what were

Because time moves along

Propelling us to be progressive

In how we buy

And share

And save

And interact

Oh hip hop, don’t fall behind

Like the guy that wears cornrows past his prime

Hesitation in your resignation of getting

Money / paper / cheese / cheddar / scrilla or guap

Affects your followers’ ability to live and live well  

You see,

I don’t know where we went astray

What once was about collective thought / group action / communal bonding

Turned stale

Happy for your commercial success

Selling out arenas / selling out records / selling out the land

Oh, hip hop I’ve loved you and followed you

And you reciprocate with images of decadence

That cost more than my few paltry cents

So it seems that what we have been sharing

Has been of no real value or virtue

So, where do we go from here because

 

Blog Meaning & Hierarchy

If you’re studying, writing about or just simply interested in digital communities and emerging media, then (hopefully) you have come to realize, or at least understand, that print is not everything.  For anyone new to this world, I apologize for having to be the one to tell you this, but if in 2011 we aren’t seriously paying attention to content on the web in meaningful and academic ways, then there is a problem.  Interestingly enough, we have been paying so much attention to legitimizing writing on the web, that multiple platforms rose up and just like class hierarchies have formed for email and social networking systems, they too exist in the world of blogging.  Or at least, that’s the story that I’m sticking too.

This blog was created in conjunction with multiple classes for my Master’s program, and as such, most of my posts stem from various articles or books that I’m reading on emerging media and digital humanities.  Much of what I have read on blogging this week centers around the rules or guidelines of what blogs are, should be, or could dangerously become, but it seems like we are not doing enough categorizing of the blogs first and then assigning the rules.  Character limitations aside, Twitter isn’t the same as Tumblr isn’t the same as WordPress.  So, are we expected to write in the same way on all these sites?  For nearly 15 years the act of blogging has grown and developed and we really had to fight (still do) for it to be regarded as something that can be scholarly.  But in doing that, have we forgotten that some of the most entertaining, informative, and honest blogs have been first person narratives with swearing, flagrant opinions over fact, and a touch bit of ambiguity to peak your interest.

Now that you have open blogging platforms that don’t require knowledge of coding to be able to contribute, a higher number of people can finally be content creators instead of viewers.  I don’t think that we have yet reached a point where everyone utilizing these tools is doing so for lofty educational purposes, so in the mean time we rank these sites and given your particular participation, you’re sending a message about yourself and your writing. Xanga vs. Blogspot vs. LiveJournal vs. Personal Webpage.  Everything we do on the web is being highlighted and in this particular form of information sharing where the author is very much transparent, the writer and the words are equally on display and contribute to hierarchies in blogging communities.

Quick Musing on Cyber Profiling

We continue to refer to the web as separate from the real world. Maybe this is a bit misguided. The web is very much real; albeit with a fanciful and erratic face, but real nonetheless.  Instead, we are either online or offline. I do realize that even as I type, this is sort of endangered terminology but it’s important in understanding that because the virtual is now so real, there are certain political, economic, and social methodologies that have manifested online.  Of course, this includes both positive and negative aspects of our culture, and I think we have accepted this. Perhaps what we haven’t accepted is the extent to which these negative / bad / immoral sites and images would be present from any mainstream portal on the Internet.

Offline we solicit the services of various law enforcement agencies to seek out wrongs, serve up punishments, and generally make us feel safe by getting rid of the bad guys.  It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch, then, to look for these same heroes to protect us online.  But a funny thing happened offline that I think has the potential (maybe already so) to take shape online: profiling.

Certain individuals have been preemptively targeted based on larger groups (others assume) they are associated with.  On the Internet, where we have the capacity to simultaneously be a part of multiple groups, how do we know that our participation in these communities isn’t setting us up as deviant and target?  What authority is over the authority—pressuring them to look at online content and activity objectively and not with presumed guilt?

Prepackaged Identity

Oh, how I love the illusion of choice.  Despite this or previous entries, I am not purely pessimistic about our online activities and interactions, nor do I believe that we can’t express ourselves in virtual environments.  Consider this my inner Foucault.  What we consider normal/usual/standard/commonplace is really something that has been taught/sold/persuaded/forced/given to us.  So, when you’re participating online, the format in how you participate and project your personality characteristics onto other users is framed by that specific site you’re using.

Who we are is based on who we are allowed to be.

It’s like eating something prepackaged. Sure, you can jazz it up w/ your own spice or two, but at the base, it was still created, maintained, and shared without your knowledge and without your specific likes and tastes in mind.  This same phenomenon exists online. So, no matter how much you think you’re unique or different or special or rare, you can only express those traits in so much as your social networking site allows you to do so.  But why does it matter what I want to represent about myself?

Well, even in our most narcissistic, individualistic moments the reason we join a social networking site is to interact with others.  Whether these others are relatives, friends, colleagues, or strangers is irrelevant.  All that matters is that we are seeking communication and connection.  And the makers of these sites find that in order to increase the chance that these two moments occur we have to eliminate as much extraneous difference as possible.   This is of particular issue when you look a site like Facebook, which has become the preeminent site for identity sharing.  Reducing choice doesn’t feel problematic when you look at identity markers that most people find irrelevant or not important in evaluating the overall likability of a person.  However, what happens when we start talking about larger markers of identity construction: gender, ethnicity, education, religious beliefs, political affiliations.  Suddenly, selecting from a dropdown menu, 1 of 5 options that is supposed to completely encompass who we are seems insultingly simple.

Yet we don’t stop our use of Facebook and (as a whole) we do not petition for “free space” in which to define ourselves.  Instead, we construct our identities to fit inside the Facebook parameters and find new ways of labeling anyone who does not confirm to the norms of presenting their identity on Facebook. Isn’t this a little stale?