[iDC] Introduction: The Internet as Playground and Factory

Mon Jun 15 05:38:25 UTC 2009

Hi Joe,

I think that your example is one of the broad shift towards more and more 'distribution of labor' vs. the old fordist division of labour, i.e. allowing the micro-level self aggregation of tasks, and this can work on all levels of social productivity, including nonprofit volunteering.

This trend is pretty much unavoidable and in my understanding, the next step in organizational forms and human civilization; so the question becomes: how do we make it work for us, and less so for capital, or, make it work at least for both, in terms of more favourable social contracts.

I make a difference between peer to peer dynamics (voluntary input, participatory process, commons output), and peer-informed modes in which older institutions try to incorporate the benefits of the new, while maintaining overall control. This is the new terrain of struggle, between communities and platforms.

The natural extension of the project is: do we follow the agenda set by large nonprofits, or can volunteers determine their own priorities, with different hybrid particpatory possibilities in between,

Michel

----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Edelman <joe.edelman at gmail.com>
> To: Trebor Scholz <trebor at thing.net>
> Cc: "idc at mailman.thing.net" <idc at mailman.thing.net>
> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:29:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [iDC] Introduction: The Internet as Playground and Factory
> 
> Trebor, Michel,
> 
> I'd be curious what you think of The Extraordinaries (beextra.org),  
> which is similar to mechanical turk, but exclusively for nonprofit use?
> 
> Is the thing we call exploitation or expropriation about capital?  Or  
> is it about control? (The strategies of large nonprofits are no more  
> democratically controlled than those of large corporations; even large  
> member coops and democratic nations can only be vaguely said to be  
> controlled by the people.)  Or is it about connection?  For me it's  
> the later:  if you meet people while you work, and those social  
> connections can help you accomplish changing in your community and  
> personal life, cross class boundaries, etc, that's a good thing.
> 
> So when I look at Mechanical Turk, what I see a way to bring tens of  
> thousands together without introducing themselves or making any kind  
> of real, helpful connection.  Which is, indeed, dystopian and scary.  
> But Wikipedia and the Obama SMS campaign have this problem to some  
> extent too.  Facebook Groups and Twitter.. less so!
> 
> --
> J.E. // nxhx.org // (c) 413.250.8007
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 13, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Trebor Scholz wrote:
> 
> > Michel,
> >
> >> Why see this as the exclusive benefit of capital, and be blind to how
> >> people are using these services for the construction of their own
> >> lives, using what is at hand.
> >
> > Hm,... from the conference introduction and my posts here I had  
> > hoped that
> > it was clear that I am not suggesting a relationship marked by one- 
> > sided
> > benefit. For the past ten years I have participated in countless  
> > social
> > milieus and created a few myself. On reflection, I'd now say that  
> > the most
> > pervasive relationship online is
> >
> > a praise-entertainment---expropriation-surveillance tradeoff
> >
> > between users and operators. I know, it's a mouth-full but as a  
> > German I
> > have a deep appreciation for seemingly unending words.
> >
> > Google's Image Labeler is a suitable example. The developer of the  
> > game
> > behind the Image Labeler wrote that he encourages people to do the  
> > work by
> > taking advantage of their desire to be entertained. It's a triadic  
> > mix of
> > self-interest ("fun," acknowledgment), network value (the image  
> > search gets
> > better), and corporate profit (Google's product improves).
> >
> > Then there is public-spirited 'interaction labor' on a small number  
> > of sites
> > like Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg, etc. At least today, they are the
> > exception. Only very few of the over 1 billion Internet users  
> > contribute to
> > these projects.
> >
> > And finally, if a worker gets paid $8 for transcribing a 45 minute- 
> > long
> > video on Mechanical Turk, then I'd call that exploitation in the most
> > technical sense of the word. However, it's expropriation and not
> > exploitation that rules the net. I added a few comments about MTurk  
> > to my
> > blog http://is.gd/10JG2
> >
> > Surely, I'm not suggesting a simple typology; things are murky.
> >
> > Perhaps we can think of exhibitions like Les Immateriaux by Lyotard  
> > and
> > Chaput in 1984, and artworks with Internet components like Learning  
> > to Love
> > You More by Fletcher and July (2003) as miniature mirror worlds of  
> > today's
> > tradeoffs when it comes to the social dynamics of participation...
> >
> > Today, it quickly gets dicey, for instance, when the creators of  
> > Facebook's
> > self-translation application state that they have opened up the  
> > translation
> > process [of the Facebook interface into some 63 languages] to the  
> > community
> > because "You know best how Facebook should be translated into your
> > language.” I don't think of this as straight exploitation but one  
> > user in
> > Los Angeles (Valentin Macias) suggested that "people should not be  
> > tricked
> > into donating their time and energy to a multimillion-dollar company  
> > so that
> > the company can make millions more – at least not without some type of
> > compensation." Others enjoyed being in the position of co-deciding how
> > "poking" is translated into their language. At the same time, they  
> > have more
> > of a stake in the company; they become more loyal costumers of  
> > Facebook.
> > Nigel Thrift was right when he proposed that "… value is embedded in  
> > the
> > experiences co-created by the individual in an experience  
> > environment that
> > the company co-develops with consumers." (Thrift, Reinventing 290)
> >
> >> Unless we start peer producing infrastructures ourselves, the
> >> sharing mode by itself is not strong enough to sustain itself.
> >
> > I could not agree more, Michel, and look forward to developing a  
> > strand of
> > the conference that is dedicated to that.
> >
> > ~Trebor
> > =
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> > (distributedcreativity.org)
> > iDC at mailman.thing.net
> > https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
> >
> > List Archive:
> > http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
> >
> > iDC Photo Stream:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
> >
> > RSS feed:
> > http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
> >
> > iDC Chat on Facebook:
> > http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
> >
> > Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity 
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
> 
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
> 
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
> 
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
> 
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
> 
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref