[iDC] A critique of sociable web media

Mon Apr 2 20:29:19 EDT 2007

Thanks for this post Trebor.

So what can we do against networked exploitation?

I think an obvious strategy is to exploit those exploiters. Google  
Will Eat Itself (GWEI)[1] and Amazon Noir[2] are good examples for  
finding the holes in sociable web media systems and using the holes  
for reverse exploitation.

I think another strategy is to stay in context for collective action  
while all those sociable web media giants are fighting with each  
other for your attention (aka attention economy). There are many ways  
to stay in context such as email lists, forums etc. and all that  
social software actions as Trebor mentioned: commenting, tagging,  
ranking, forwarding, linking, moderating, remixing etc. Tools and  
environments for such actions are mainly provided by giant  
corporations, and under US laws, one who aggregates information owns  
it. But we can make our own web services for staying in the context,  
just like the way we can setup and maintain an old email list  
technology.

So this brings in the discussion of "open service provider". As open  
source software development communities demonstrate, we can  
collectively create value independent from the capitalist  
exploitation. If we are in the software-as-service era [3], support  
and use open service providers as much as you support open source  
software. It is very important to intensify and redirect our  
collective techno-cultural production to a territory that is formed  
more by individual’s free-will than capital's interests. But of  
course making one open alternative for each commercial-social web  
tool/environment is not all that relevant, it sounds just like making  
the free version of MS Office. So an open service provider can use  
existing techniques but I think they should invent new types of  
interaction and aggregation for the good of the community.

I use software-as-service strategy in my artwork. They are not  
commercial services nor utilitarian. I believe that building an open  
service is closer to making a cultural product than making a  
commercial one. As Steve Kurtz of Critical Art Ensemble puts it the  
relation of the creative expression to social processes is as  
important as the materials, processes, and products. [4]

Burak Arikan

* A version of this email is also posted in my journal
burak-arikan.com/blog

[1] GWEI. gwei.org

[2] Amazon Noir amazon-noir.com

[3] Open Source Paradigm Shift, Tim O'Reilly. http://tim.oreilly.com/ 
articles/paradigmshift_0504.html

[4] Observations on Collective Cultural Action by Steve Kurtz,  
Critical Art Ensemble. http://www.variant.randomstate.org/15texts/ 
cae.html

On Apr 1, 2007, at 9:47 PM, Trebor Scholz wrote:

> Perhaps this exchange could lead us to deepen our earlier debate  
> about possibilities for a radical critique of sociable web media.
>
> If you agree with Paolo Virno's and Maurizio Lazzaroto's theory  
> that argues that "virtuosic performance" and "the act of being a  
> speaker" is the new immaterial labor [of the
> North], then yes, the sociable web is the new "factory without  
> walls." I, for one, don't sign off on the fucked up naturalization  
> of the exploitation labor that is so dear to
> capitalism. Where are the people who care if big profits are made  
> of their distributed creativity? Most participants are not  
> conscious of their embrace of market-based behavior.
> The most central sites of the World Wide Web create massive surplus  
> value and small startups are frequently bought out by the Walmarts  
> of the Internet (NewsCorp, Yahoo,
> Google) the very moment that they attract sufficient numbers of  
> page views. People spend most time on the sites of these giants and  
> not in the "mom and pop stores." Almost
> 12 percent of all time spent by Americans online is spend on MySpace.
>
> Nicholas Carr pointed out that forty percent of all web traffic is  
> concentrated on ten websites (www.sina.com.cn, www.baidu.com,  
> www.yahoo.com, www.msn.com,
> www.google.com, www.youtube.com, www.myspace.com, www.live.com,  
> www.orkut.com, and www.qq.com).
>
> Most of these sites owe their popularity to the wealth of content  
> generated by the visiting net publics that spend significant  
> amounts of time on these very, very few sites thus
> creating wealth for a handful of corporate owners. What pulls  
> people in?
>
> In a recent interview with Forbes Video Network, Jay Adelson (CEO  
> of Digg.com) was asked "What's going to keep people to come back?"  
> Adelson responded:
>
> "Community is what really keeps people coming back. These people  
> are passionate about what Digg has done for them. The user  
> experience they get from being part of that
> community is only getting better each day."
>
> Attention translates into concrete monetary value and community is  
> the product. Crude offline capitalism is replicated online, much  
> against the hopes of early cybernetics and
> the linked back-to-the-land, countercultural aspirations of the  
> late 60s and early 70s that Fred Turner talks about.
>
> The dynamic of-- being used-- may hold much less true for  
> peripheral websites in the concentric hierarchy of the  
> participatory web. The online "mom and pop store" has a much
> more benevolent ratio of participant benefits versus the company's  
> running costs. And then there are also the two or three non-profits  
> like Archive.org and Craig Newmark's
> initiatives holding up 'Fort Hope.' They are, to be sure, not  
> dominating the read/write web.
>
> The immaterial, "affective labor" of net publics produces data.  
> Contributors comment, tag, rank, forward, read, subscribe, re-post,  
> link, moderate, remix, share, collaborate,
> favorite, write; flirt, work, play, chat, gossip, discuss, and  
> learn. They fill in profiles: 120 million people shared detailed  
> personal information with NewsCorp, for example. 18
> million students shared personal details in their Facebook profiles  
> with Yahoo. They share information about their favorite music and  
> clubs. They are not shy to list the books
> they are reading and the movies they are watching. They detail  
> their sexual orientation and postal address complete with hometown,  
> phone number, and email address. They
> share pictures, educational history and employment. Profiles, even  
> if only visible to their buddies (and well, Yahoo), they list their  
> daily schedules, general interests, and friends.
>
> It seems obvious that all this channeled networked sociality  
> represents monetary value. Post-dot.bomb, the Google zars would not  
> buy a very young video website like YouTube
> for the price of the New York Times Company if there would not be a  
> clear monetary value.
>
> The dicey ethics related to property issues and exploitation of  
> labor of *the core of the sociable web* becomes apparent if we look  
> at Yahoo's privacy policies for Facebook.
>
> "Facebook may also collect information about you from other  
> sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and  
> other users of the Facebook service through
> the operation of the service (e.g., photo tags) in order to provide  
> you with more useful information and a more personalized experience."
>
> That is a dream come true for any market researcher. But it does  
> not stop at bizarre privacy policies, Yahoo also claims rights over  
> the content on Facebook:
>
> "By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically  
> grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to  
> grant, to the Company an irrevocable,
> perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide  
> license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly  
> perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in
> whole or in part) and distribute such User Content..."
>
> The picture of net publics--being used--is, however, complicated by  
> the fact that participants undeniably get a lot out of their  
> participation. There is the pleasure of creation and
> mere social enjoyment. Participants gain friendships and a sense of  
> group belonging. They share their life experiences and archive  
> their memories. They are getting jobs, find
> dates and arguably contribute to the greater good.
>
> The scale and degree of exploitation of immaterial labor is most  
> disturbing when looking at the highest traffic sites. The sociable  
> web makes people easier to use and this
> dynamic will only be amplified by the increasing connection of  
> mobile devices to the big social networking sites.
>
> Trebor Scholz
>
> PS: I'll add the necessary references to this text and post it on  
> my blog.
> http://collectivate.net/journalisms/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/