[iDC] Introduction: The Internet as Playground and Factory
Michael Bauwens
michelsub2003 at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 15 15:05:55 UTC 2009
Interesting distinction ..
do you have more about this?
to supplement our entry on: http://p2pfoundation.net/Value_Sensitive_Design
----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Edelman <joe.edelman at gmail.com>
> To: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Trebor Scholz <trebor at thing.net>; idc at mailman.thing.net; Ben Rigby <ben at beExtra.org>; jacob at beextra.org
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:30:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [iDC] Introduction: The Internet as Playground and Factory
>
> Michel,
>
> I like this perspective. The only thing that I would add is that there's often
> a design choice, when we as programmer-organizers are choosing how to structure
> this 'distribution of labor', between following a more 'grid computing' model
> (take a task, complete it, check it in, update the issue tracker) versus
> following a more 'bittorrent' model (talk to this guy about the work done so
> far, do some work, hand it off to this other guy). The former creates
> connections only from workers to the central tracking point. The latter creates
> peer connections. The latter is better for building social capital.
>
> I would encourage the designers of The Extraordinaries, and other crowdsourcing
> systems, to make this design decision thoughtfully.
>
> --Joe
>
> --
> J.E. // nxhx.org // (c) 413.250.8007
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 1:38 AM, Michael Bauwens wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
> >> To: Trebor Scholz
> >> Cc: "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
> >
> >
> >
> >
More information about the iDC
mailing list