Comments on: Surely the digital divide is not the internet’s fault? http://www.projectcarousel.org/2010/02/surely-the-digital-divide-is-not-the-internets-fault/ Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:28:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Project: Carousel! » Digital resistance in Zimbabwe http://www.projectcarousel.org/2010/02/surely-the-digital-divide-is-not-the-internets-fault/comment-page-1/#comment-626 Project: Carousel! » Digital resistance in Zimbabwe Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:21:37 +0000 http://www.projectcarousel.org/?p=2133#comment-626 [...] on from my previous post about the digital divide not being the internet’s fault, I thought I’d write about some more practical stuff. As the benevolent dictator said: [...] [...] on from my previous post about the digital divide not being the internet’s fault, I thought I’d write about some more practical stuff. As the benevolent dictator said: [...]

]]> By: objetpetitm http://www.projectcarousel.org/2010/02/surely-the-digital-divide-is-not-the-internets-fault/comment-page-1/#comment-488 objetpetitm Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:02:11 +0000 http://www.projectcarousel.org/?p=2133#comment-488 @pontusw: i call it "poke with a stick" methodology. that is, find out by doing. similarly, theory serves it place. @pontusw: i call it “poke with a stick” methodology. that is, find out by doing. similarly, theory serves it place.

]]> By: Pontus Westerberg http://www.projectcarousel.org/2010/02/surely-the-digital-divide-is-not-the-internets-fault/comment-page-1/#comment-487 Pontus Westerberg Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:34:13 +0000 http://www.projectcarousel.org/?p=2133#comment-487 @Azar 'Mediating horizontal communication'. Interesting. The fact that people are talking about something is a story. @objetpetitm So the best thing is to stop talking about it and just get on with it? @Azar ‘Mediating horizontal communication’. Interesting. The fact that people are talking about something is a story.

@objetpetitm So the best thing is to stop talking about it and just get on with it?

]]> By: objetpetitm http://www.projectcarousel.org/2010/02/surely-the-digital-divide-is-not-the-internets-fault/comment-page-1/#comment-472 objetpetitm Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:23:28 +0000 http://www.projectcarousel.org/?p=2133#comment-472 Two somewhat simple thoughts I have: 1) The abstract does not explain anything; it itself must be explained; 2) No need to hope or fear, but find new weapons. So, firstly, Internet or social media itself does not mean anything. Rather, it would be good to look at where these utterances are made and which assemblages they tie into. There is a tendency in academia to stick our heads up our asses and talk only to each other. But a theory is good only as far as it connects to something. So I would look case by case by case what is going and what assemblages/networks the theories connect to assess what they are doing and what is their utility. Who reads them? Who are they targeted towards? The problem as is rightly noted in the criticism is that we tend to too often naturalize a proto-Californian techno-hippie subject position to talk about digital culture and its utopian potential which is probably more about their twisted mix of zen, decaf coffee, utopian entrepreneurship, capitalism light and its conceptions of free information than it is about what these technologies actually do in different parts of the world. So first explain the production of the discourse rather than use this discourse to explain what is going on. Secondly, and somewhat related, there is a flaw in critical theory when it tries conflate academic criticism with getting things done. Yes, sure, there are socio-economic inequalities. Yes, sure, the criticism of Californian Ideology and digital techno-fetishism has its place and time. But these criticism are misplaced when we try to do something practical with these technologies: we are talking about techne (practice of doing something) rather episteme (the practice of understanding something) - both of which operate under different registers of practice. So what we should look at when we want to use social media practically for some purposes is, given the context, what can be done rather than what should be done? This I believe has to be experimental as we never know exactly how they can be use as contingency is a key characteristic of practice. Beware the hylomorphists :). http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hylomorphism#Modern_Ideas Worst of course is when we buy into our bullshit. When we take one such theory such as the utopianism of the Californian techno-hippies as given and try to apply it to a different place without getting to know the specifics of what is going on. Suprisingly, we talk about Apple and iPhone incessantly. But it seems Nokia is still increasing its market share globally. Wonder why? http://mobile.venturebeat.com/2010/02/02/nokia-extends-presence-in-emerging-markets/ Two somewhat simple thoughts I have:

1) The abstract does not explain anything; it itself must be explained;

2) No need to hope or fear, but find new weapons.

So, firstly, Internet or social media itself does not mean anything. Rather, it would be good to look at where these utterances are made and which assemblages they tie into. There is a tendency in academia to stick our heads up our asses and talk only to each other. But a theory is good only as far as it connects to something. So I would look case by case by case what is going and what assemblages/networks the theories connect to assess what they are doing and what is their utility. Who reads them? Who are they targeted towards? The problem as is rightly noted in the criticism is that we tend to too often naturalize a proto-Californian techno-hippie subject position to talk about digital culture and its utopian potential which is probably more about their twisted mix of zen, decaf coffee,
utopian entrepreneurship, capitalism light and its conceptions of free information than it is about what these technologies actually do in different parts of the world. So first explain the production of the discourse rather than use this discourse to explain what is going on.

Secondly, and somewhat related, there is a flaw in critical theory when it tries conflate academic criticism with getting things done. Yes, sure, there are socio-economic inequalities. Yes, sure, the criticism of Californian Ideology and digital techno-fetishism has its place and time. But these criticism are misplaced when we try to do something practical with these technologies: we are talking about techne (practice of doing something) rather episteme (the practice of understanding something) – both of which operate under different registers of practice. So what we should look at when we want to use social media practically for some purposes is, given the context, what can be done rather than what should be done? This I believe has to be experimental as we never know exactly how they can be use as contingency is a key characteristic of practice. Beware the hylomorphists :) .

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hylomorphism#Modern_Ideas

Worst of course is when we buy into our bullshit. When we take one such theory such as the utopianism of the Californian techno-hippies as given and try to apply it to a different place without getting to know the specifics of what is going on.

Suprisingly, we talk about Apple and iPhone incessantly. But it seems Nokia is still increasing its market share globally. Wonder why?

http://mobile.venturebeat.com/2010/02/02/nokia-extends-presence-in-emerging-markets/

]]> By: Azar Zaidi http://www.projectcarousel.org/2010/02/surely-the-digital-divide-is-not-the-internets-fault/comment-page-1/#comment-471 Azar Zaidi Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:05:30 +0000 http://www.projectcarousel.org/?p=2133#comment-471 Hey Pontus, First up, thanks for the 'special mention', Shannon gets a lot of attention already ;)(he's a gangster, that man!) . Second, also connected with the tag, is that I don't think I clarified my position on social media tools, partly because I am still forming an opinion about it. Nothing concrete there at the moment. Going back to my presentation, it struck me much afterwards that I had sort of dismissed something quite important as trivial. If nothing else, the Pink Chaddi campaign had got us talking about an issue that would otherwise be brushed under the carpet. Of course, I am saying this at the cost of implying that girls being beaten up wouldn't have made the news or shocked us. That would have happened nonetheless. The Facebook campaign, however, kept the agitation alive and fresh, prolonging it beyond the normal attention tv news pays to such incidents. It prevented a situation where people nuisanced by it didn't just look the other way and hope that it would go away! That is a major achievement in itself, because it kind of forced people to confront themselves and admit that something needed to be done. I read Jo Bardeol for my Transnews essay and Bardeol draws up a three-layered structure (shudder... shudder...) in which new media plays the not insignifcant role of "mediatising" horizontal communication. This is signifcant, as it indicates that there is communication or simply more communication and interaction in a context that was previously sort of free(or freer?!)of such activity. So social media does have a role to play! And even more so in conjunction with the kind of lives we live today. But you still have to educate me about technological determinisn. Because from what I understand, we too are indulging in the same! Phew! Hope have made sense. We'll talk some more on this :) Hey Pontus,
First up, thanks for the ‘special mention’, Shannon gets a lot of attention already ;) (he’s a gangster, that man!) .
Second, also connected with the tag, is that I don’t think I clarified my position on social media tools, partly because I am still forming an opinion about it. Nothing concrete there at the moment.
Going back to my presentation, it struck me much afterwards that I had sort of dismissed something quite important as trivial. If nothing else, the Pink Chaddi campaign had got us talking about an issue that would otherwise be brushed under the carpet. Of course, I am saying this at the cost of implying that girls being beaten up wouldn’t have made the news or shocked us. That would have happened nonetheless. The Facebook campaign, however, kept the agitation alive and fresh, prolonging it beyond the normal attention tv news pays to such incidents. It prevented a situation where people nuisanced by it didn’t just look the other way and hope that it would go away! That is a major achievement in itself, because it kind of forced people to confront themselves and admit that something needed to be done.
I read Jo Bardeol for my Transnews essay and Bardeol draws up a three-layered structure (shudder… shudder…) in which new media plays the not insignifcant role of “mediatising” horizontal communication. This is signifcant, as it indicates that there is communication or simply more communication and interaction in a context that was previously sort of free(or freer?!)of such activity.
So social media does have a role to play! And even more so in conjunction with the kind of lives we live today.
But you still have to educate me about technological determinisn. Because from what I understand, we too are indulging in the same!
Phew! Hope have made sense. We’ll talk some more on this :)

]]>