As technology continues to integrate itself into our daily lives, we are confounded by the translation of language into its digital parallel: code. Code complicates language by mediating modes of communication and what they aim to communicate. I aim to examine how the Linux community exploits this coded mediation to a utilitarian purpose. As Hayles argues, code exceeds speech and writing in its capability because it possesses characteristics beyond a representative sign or a functional signifier; code can represent the relationship that exists between the two. 1 This notion of code serving a dual (or multiple) purpose was previously alluded to by cultural theorist Dick Hebdige, who examined social codes as formative for subcultures, which utilize these codes to recognize and verify authenticity. The obvious problem is that these codes are then often broken by their very identification and translation. Linux, as a digital subculture, stands to reconcile this contradiction. Because of its unifying open source ethos, Linux is able to identify its own codes, both cultural and binary, as well as adapt to the translation into other languages, thereby transcending the inherent contradictions in the relationship between sign and signifier that traditionally undermine subcultural models. The utility of code is what enables Linux to proliferate; that proliferation reinforces code as functional language.
The presence of code in daily life often goes unnoticed; digital mediation is nearly assumed present in oral and written communications. From Saussure’s claim that “the spoken word alone constitutes the object”2 through Derrida’s assertion that it exists as but a signifier to the actual sign itself, observable problems arise in the development of the relationship between speech and writing. Code functions to reconcile the two by acting as both sign and signifier, both interpretable and applicable—but as this reconciliation is translated to code through digital mediation, the in-between becomes truly revealing. Katherine Hayles states the need for “nuanced analyses of the overlaps and discontinuities of code with the legacy systems of speech and writing, so that we can understand how processes of signification change when speech and writing are coded into binary units.”3 If code can theoretically assume roles of both speech and writing, how can it do this practically? What are the implications of code as a hybrid language system?
Alexander Galloway points out that “code is the only language that is executable,”4 in reference to computer codes; but this evaluation is not entirely complete. Not dissimilar to the way varying dramatic, legal and sacred texts can be performative, code can be executable when its functions parallel speech or writing. Subcultures exemplify this execution of code. Subcultures exploit the disconnect between sign and signifier to encrypt the underlying meaning. “In this way, its very taken-for-grantedness is what establishes it as a medium in which its own premises and presuppositions are being rendered invisible by its apparent transparency,”5 writes Stuart Hall. This act of rendering invisible the essence of code, code as dual meaning, 0is itself the execution of code as language.
Yet as Hebdige approaches this subcultural appropriation of code, there is an immediate contradiction in bestowing authority upon constitutive, authenticating signs and signifiers to serve as an alternate parallel language to speech or writing. Citing Barthes’ cultural appropriations of the linguistic method, Hebdige interprets that “it was hoped that the invisible seam between language, experience and reality could be… rendered meaningful and, miraculously, at the same time, be made to disappear.”6 However, this is indeed a hope. The codes adopted by subcultures as significant pose themselves an inbred problem in execution: to execute subcultural code is to activate a signifier by identifying its sign, which breaks the code by oversimplifying the relationship between the two.7 Trying to execute the unexecutable is possible, but defeats the purpose.
Linux inverts this subcultural model by taking advantage of this oversimplification. The Linux community evolved in direct response to dominant operating systems, such as Mac and Windows8, whose code was all closed source. The initial desire for modifiable open source codes led to an interactive collective of programmers who were not rebelling against, but adapting to, the programming of Mac and Windows. Yet in its adaptation of computer code, Linux indirectly outlined social codes identifying and structuring itself as a digital subculture, codes that emphasized the unifying facet of Linux as code translatable to every person and operating system in order to be truly utilitarian. This essential tenet, from where Linux’s subcultural identity stems, is that open source code is free9 for everyone to use, modify, reprogram, republish, and distribute.
By making these links within its functioning transparent, Linux not only identifies the function of its subbcultural codes but also exploits the utility of coded language by adapting to the detrimental sign/signifier relationship of speech and writing; it does not exist parallel to, but interactive with speech and writing to transcend inherent barriers and absorb the linguistic exchanges into its function. Essentially depending on coded language for both adaptation and cultural identity, Linux thereby inverts the traditional subcultural model that is undermined by translation because the language of code is adaptive enough to do so.
The rift between speech and writing, sign and signifier, is deproblemetized with code because it is able to function as both. Florian Cramer summarizes that: “Read as a net literature and a net culture, Free Software [like Linux] is a highly sophisticated system of self-applied text and social interactions. No other net culture has invented its computer code as thoroughly, and no other net culture has acquired a similar awareness of the culture and politics of the digital text.”10 Whether Linux can endure upon this awareness of codes is yet to be seen, but as it exists, its codes are its essence.
1. “The exchanges, conflicts, and cooperations between the embedded assumptions of speech and writing in relation to code would be likely to slip unnoticed through a framework based solely on networked and programmable media, for the shift over to the new assumptions would tend to obscure the ways in which the older worldviews engage in continuing negotiations and intermediations with the new… [in] the reverse operation of trying to fit the speech and writing systems into the worldview of code… here too I expect the discontinuities to be as revealing as the continuities.” Hayles, Katherine. Speech, Writing, Code: Three Worldviews, My Mother Was A Computer. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2005. p45
2. As cited by Hayles, p42.
3. Hayles, p39.
4. As cited by Hayles, p50
5. Hall, Stuart (1977) as cited by Hebdige, Dick, From Culture to Hegemony, Subculture: the Meaning of Style. New York: Routledge Publishing, 1979. p11. Hebdige continues: “Notions concerning the sanctity of language are intimately bound up with ideas of social order. The limits of acceptable linguistic expression are prescribed by a number of apparently universal taboos. These taboos guarantee the continuing ‘transparency’ (the taken-for-grantedness) of meaning.” [p91]
6. Hebdige, p10.
7. Hebdige uses punk as a prime example. When you identify something (spiked hair, nose piercing, etc.) as being “punk” or replicate it as punk, its authentic quality (“punkness”) is reduced.
8. Raymond notes that Linux code was written to operate on PCs, yet its open source nature is also inclusive and adaptable. Raymond outlines “lessons” in Linux, examples that prove such: “2. Good programmers know what to write. Great ones know what to rewrite (and reuse).” “7. Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers.” “10. If you treat your beta-testers as if they’re your most valuable resource, they will respond by becoming your most valuable resource.”
9. Free as in speech, not as in beer.” Torvald, www.fsf.org.
10. Cramer, Florian. Free Software as Collaborate Text. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, 2000.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Assignment #4: Information Access
COMMENTS
Texts Used: “As We May Think” by Vannavear Bush; “Return to
The next time you’re on YouTube, take a look at what might be the most important part of the page (sans the video): the tags. The tags, which facilitate YouTube’s search feature, determine who sees the video; they play off of interests, or popular searches. It’s not uncommon to see users tag their videos with popular buzzwords, often just to catch the eye of more viewers – relevancy is optional. When Vannavear Bush first conceptualized the MEMEX in 1945, he saw, in fact, a relatively simple system which played off of “the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain,[1]” much in the same way as these tags do. In creating databases, hyperlink maps, and indexes, we create “management tools, not access tools[2]” - but management tools may be all that we need. Although the ED2 project seeks to “make the Web a true knowledge resource[3]” by claiming a greater emphasis on temporality, spatiality, authorship, & contention from information objects, changing the system “to recognize and accommodate the negotiated, narrative, emergent, and incommensurable nature of knowledge production and use[4]” can be, depending on the user, superfluous.
The acquisition of “knowledge” in the sense that Srivanasan describes it is not necessarily the primary aim of the Internet, nor would it be its most beneficial function of mankind as a whole. It may be the nature of today’s culture, but complete understanding of a subject is, most likely, a bit much for the average user. “…the knowledge of a particular topic… rarely can be uncovered within a single description or descriptive trope.[5]” Why should it? Bush’s concept of the MEMEX was based upon the instantaneous accessibility of knowledge, “provision for the consultation of the record by the usual scheme of indexing.[6]” Greater depth of understanding via narrative and personal perspective should be (and certainly is) accessible to those who seek it – not forced upon a curious individual simply seeking an introduction to a topic.
(There are, however, limitations to the MEMEX concept that were eventually overcome by the modern nature of information technologies. First, the concept of storage limitation; although the MEMEX could hold a great deal of information, it was ultimately finite. The presence of information over a worldwide distributed network [i.e. the Internet] allows for the compilation of even more data, the “process of tying two items together[7]”. Secondly, there seems to be an over-reliance on codes. By using codes to pull up certain material, one has to know each code specifically [the “mnemonic” bookmarking for frequently used codes notwithstanding] to pull up a certain text. There’s also no way to look for a certain passage. However, the emergence of “search engines” has served to alleviate many of these concerns; further discussion of this phenomenon, however, is beyond the scope of this posting.)
ED2 claims to concern itself primarily with three issues: “temporality/spatiality, authorship, & contention from information objects.[8]” It cites the concept that “Knowledge claims are of a time and place... Information objects are translations of these authored stories to timeless abstractions.” While the first statement may be valid, the second is not necessarily true; many “information objects” such as website postings and wiki entries have information (either externally visible or embedded) on who authored or edited the piece of information, when (date and time), and even where (IP information). As for the contentions of information objects, i.e. the constant discourse & debate over the validity of information, the claim that “the transformative processes that create information remove these dynamics[9]” is more than a bit misleading. At least in terms of mainstream information (encyclopedias, news articles, etc.), information is subject to constant revision, most visible in the discussions over information found readily throughout Wikipedia and its many contributors. Additionally, scientific resources such as Nature, although static in individual publication, are dynamic in their constant revision of knowledge through the publication of many information objects on one subject over a period of time.
Ultimately, the question of how information should be labeled, organized, indexed, and distributed, is one of ontology – “the way in which a certain community negotiates the conceptualization & organization of its knowledge and information.[10]” For the indigenous groups described in “Return to
Assignment #4: Information Access
COMMENTS
Texts Used: “As We May Think” by Vannavear Bush; “Return to
The next time you’re on YouTube, take a look at what might be the most important part of the page (sans the video): the tags. The tags, which facilitate YouTube’s search feature, determine who sees the video; they play off of interests, or popular searches. It’s not uncommon to see users tag their videos with popular buzzwords, often just to catch the eye of more viewers – relevancy is optional. When Vannavear Bush first conceptualized the MEMEX in 1945, he saw, in fact, a relatively simple system which played off of “the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain,[1]” much in the same way as these tags do. In creating databases, hyperlink maps, and indexes, we create “management tools, not access tools[2]” - but management tools may be all that we need. Although the ED2 project seeks to “make the Web a true knowledge resource[3]” by claiming a greater emphasis on temporality, spatiality, authorship, & contention from information objects, changing the system “to recognize and accommodate the negotiated, narrative, emergent, and incommensurable nature of knowledge production and use[4]” can be, depending on the user, superfluous.
The acquisition of “knowledge” in the sense that Srivanasan describes it is not necessarily the primary aim of the Internet, nor would it be its most beneficial function of mankind as a whole. It may be the nature of today’s culture, but complete understanding of a subject is, most likely, a bit much for the average user. “…the knowledge of a particular topic… rarely can be uncovered within a single description or descriptive trope.[5]” Why should it? Bush’s concept of the MEMEX was based upon the instantaneous accessibility of knowledge, “provision for the consultation of the record by the usual scheme of indexing.[6]” Greater depth of understanding via narrative and personal perspective should be (and certainly is) accessible to those who seek it – not forced upon a curious individual simply seeking an introduction to a topic.
(There are, however, limitations to the MEMEX concept that were eventually overcome by the modern nature of information technologies. First, the concept of storage limitation; although the MEMEX could hold a great deal of information, it was ultimately finite. The presence of information over a worldwide distributed network [i.e. the Internet] allows for the compilation of even more data, the “process of tying two items together[7]”. Secondly, there seems to be an over-reliance on codes. By using codes to pull up certain material, one has to know each code specifically [the “mnemonic” bookmarking for frequently used codes notwithstanding] to pull up a certain text. There’s also no way to look for a certain passage. However, the emergence of “search engines” has served to alleviate many of these concerns; further discussion of this phenomenon, however, is beyond the scope of this posting.)
ED2 claims to concern itself primarily with three issues: “temporality/spatiality, authorship, & contention from information objects.[8]” It cites the concept that “Knowledge claims are of a time and place... Information objects are translations of these authored stories to timeless abstractions.” While the first statement may be valid, the second is not necessarily true; many “information objects” such as website postings and wiki entries have information (either externally visible or embedded) on who authored or edited the piece of information, when (date and time), and even where (IP information). As for the contentions of information objects, i.e. the constant discourse & debate over the validity of information, the claim that “the transformative processes that create information remove these dynamics[9]” is more than a bit misleading. At least in terms of mainstream information (encyclopedias, news articles, etc.), information is subject to constant revision, most visible in the discussions over information found readily throughout Wikipedia and its many contributors. Additionally, scientific resources such as Nature, although static in individual publication, are dynamic in their constant revision of knowledge through the publication of many information objects on one subject over a period of time.
Ultimately, the question of how information should be labeled, organized, indexed, and distributed, is one of ontology – “the way in which a certain community negotiates the conceptualization & organization of its knowledge and information.[10]” For the indigenous groups described in “Return to
Freedom In The Internet Era
COMMENTS please!
Since the beginning, the Internet has been intimately linked to the notion of freedom--freedom from authority, freedom to move, and freedom to create. As the Internet has become an increasingly larger player in the economic realm, freedom in the context of the Internet has changed. Today, Internet freedom means interactive and collective activity free of cost. Tiziana Terranova gestures towards the economic aspects of the Net’s freedom in her essay Free Labor- Producing Culture For The Digital Economy. Entwined with these economic implications is the aspect of Internet freedom Julian Dibbel examines in his book My Tiny Life, its communal spirit. However, Dibbel’s argument, which is made possible by the phenomenon Terranova writes about, also brings up another important point to consider. While these free communal activities can be positive, they can also be perilous, making users extremely vulnerable to the ill intentions of other users who exploit this two-fold system of freedom.
When Dibbel’s and Terranova’s texts are combined, the definition of “free” doubles. Put the two together, and freedom means both without cost (Terranova) and without boundaries (Dibbel). The combination of these two definitions has profound implications for the kinds of activities that will occur on the Internet in the future. At the end of her essay, Terranova claims that the Internet “is dispersed to the point where practically anything is tolerated” (Terranova 53). Terranova continues, stating that the Internet produces a “digital economy that cares only tangentially about morality” (Terranova 53). The cyber rape Dibbel chronicles in My Tiny Life corroborates Terranova’s claim. It also happens to be a result of this new and hybridized notion of freedom.
The two types of freedom, gratis and without strictures, are very connected. Terranova’s definition of digital labor, which is necessarily free and collective, is a key place to start.
Simultaneously voluntarily given and unwaged, enjoyed and exploited, free labor on the Net includes the activity of building Web sites, modifying software packages, reading and participating in mailing lists, and building virtual spaces on MUDs and MOOs (Terranova 33)
The important part of this explanation is when Terranova mentions that MUDs and MOOs are products of free digital labor. This labor is enjoyable because in exchange for the work, the worker gets the pleasure from communication with others in the new system. LambaMOO says as much about itself on its site: “LambdaMOO is a new kind of society, where thousands of people voluntarily come together from all over the world” (qtd. in Dibbel 11).
Julian Dibbel goes on to describe LambdaMOO as, “a very large and very busy rustic mansion built entirely of words” (Dibbel 11). However, this world of words is dangerous. As Dibbel observes, “what transpires between word-costumed characters within the boundaries of a make-believe world is, if not mere play, then at most some kind of emotional laboratory experiment” (Dibbel 23) whose results can have graver consequences than anticipated.
In accordance to Terranova’s definition of digital labor, LambaMOO is a place created by users and for users. This setup makes LambdaMOO a free speech utopia. Users are liberated (free) to say whatever they please. However, Dibbel also sees the negative connotations of this free for all. In this word-costuming is “the power of anonymity and textual suggestiveness to unshackle deep-seated fantasies” (Dibbel 16). This seductive combination compels some users to take actions they would never dream of performing in RL, or Real Life. In fact, it was precisely these conditions that facilitated the cyber rape Dibbel wrote about.
The Bungle Affair, as Dibbel calls it, comes full circle to Terranova’s observations that the digital economy is only minimally concerned with morality (Terranova 53). Almost anything is tolerated in the dispersed expanse of cyberspace (Terranova 53). The problem arises when something happens that users collectively agree is wrong. In this new society free from rules and regulations, what happens when somebody crosses the line? And, for that matter, in this doubly free society, where is the line, anyway? These tricky questions were the dilemmas the members of LambdaMOO had to navigate in the wake of the Bungle Affair.
Together, these texts by Terranova and Dibbel paint a picture of the future. As free digital labor becomes more widespread, this confusion over where freedom ends and boundaries begin will arise over and over again. As Internet users share more and more of themselves with each other in this newly open and free environment, the more vulnerable they will become. For generations, parents have warned children eager for independence that with freedom comes great responsibility. As Internet users gain even more freedom through labor and expression, the stakes just keep getting higher, and responsibility for this new swelling of freedom is not to be taken lightly.
Works Cited
Dibbel, Julian. My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World. New York: Henry Holt & Co, 1998.
Terranova, Tiziana. “Free Labor: Producing Culture For the Digital Economy.” Social Text 18.2 (2000) 33-58.
Sharing documents (makeup post for last week of class)
When I first read the GNU FAQ, I was very unimpressed. The philosophy seemed a little elitist for suggesting that normal people should just drop everything and use free software. It's been a long time since cars were simple enough that people fixed their own; now people go to the shop even for an oil change.
But then I wandered around for a while and discovered a page (under Philosophy) about why sending .doc attachments in e-mails is bad for everybody. Again, it seemed a little too sure of itself, but the point is sound: sending a proprietary format attachment, which Microsoft changes so that programs like OpenOffice have a hard time reading it, is a little rude. It assumes that your recipient has Word, which some people don't want to or can't spend the money on.
So maybe this affects us all more than we think. Another corporation has hooked people on its product. But how is the average computer user supposed to resist buying the latest version of Microsoft Word when she knows that all her friends and colleagues will be sending documents she can't read, instead of text, rich text or portable document formats? It's a question I certainly can't answer, and it remains to be seen whether regular people who don't know what goes on inside the box will ever care about where their software comes from.
But then I wandered around for a while and discovered a page (under Philosophy) about why sending .doc attachments in e-mails is bad for everybody. Again, it seemed a little too sure of itself, but the point is sound: sending a proprietary format attachment, which Microsoft changes so that programs like OpenOffice have a hard time reading it, is a little rude. It assumes that your recipient has Word, which some people don't want to or can't spend the money on.
So maybe this affects us all more than we think. Another corporation has hooked people on its product. But how is the average computer user supposed to resist buying the latest version of Microsoft Word when she knows that all her friends and colleagues will be sending documents she can't read, instead of text, rich text or portable document formats? It's a question I certainly can't answer, and it remains to be seen whether regular people who don't know what goes on inside the box will ever care about where their software comes from.
Make-Up Blog (Week of March 31 - April 3)
Part of an e-mail to Ramesh after his Skype visit to class:
In "Indigenous, Ethnic, and Cultural Articulations of New Media" and other articles, your new media models and interventions seem to attempt to form bridges across disconnected reservations. Have there been any physical effects as a result of these information systems? Have you seen any movement or migration of people between these reservations, and can any of it be attributed to (or simply compared with) the (electronic) structure of the networks you've implemented? Also, do you see any possibilities for your ideas to apply to small, marginalized, nondiasporic communities who have common ties apart from race and ethnicity?
In "Indigenous, Ethnic, and Cultural Articulations of New Media" and other articles, your new media models and interventions seem to attempt to form bridges across disconnected reservations. Have there been any physical effects as a result of these information systems? Have you seen any movement or migration of people between these reservations, and can any of it be attributed to (or simply compared with) the (electronic) structure of the networks you've implemented? Also, do you see any possibilities for your ideas to apply to small, marginalized, nondiasporic communities who have common ties apart from race and ethnicity?
Make-up Blog (March 17-19)
Agre’s discussion of surveillance casts it as a model, “a set of metaphors” which maintains an “identification with the state . . . with consciously planned-out malevolent aims of a specifically political nature,” (Agre 743). He also notes the conflation of human bodies with their constituent parts or objects metonymically associated with them (ex. “a system that tracks trucks can generally depend on a stable correspondence . . . between trucks and their drivers”) (742). This made me think of biopower as part of the state’s political aims in conditions of near or imagined “total surveillance,” (737). Agre agrees to a paranoid extent with Foucault about disciplinary/surveillance societies simultaneously forcing and enforcing compliance with their mechanisms of organization and ideological aims. By objectifying the body and its parts to make it capable of tracking, institutions impose “a moral influence over behavior,” (Foucault 210) and regulations of the body with eugenic implications.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
(very) Late Post on Surveillance (Week of 3/17-3/21)
I recently came across this video surveillance game called Vigilance 1.0. The player is tasked with maintaining morality and order by monitoring surveillance cameras and denouncing any digressions. They player is rewarded for punishing anyone caught in the act of "robberies, pocket-pickings, burglaries, shop-lifts, breaches of the highway code, trash-abandoning, drug dealing, solicitation on a public place, procuring, drunkenness, sexual harassment, adultery, incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, etc."
The art-game's description and game play are intentionally tongue and cheek. There is no winning as the game continues indefinitely and the system arbitrarily assigns point values to crimes (+2 points for prostitution, +10 for bagsnatching, -1 for false allegations). The game's developer makes the claim that for the player, the game is "At the end, the denunciation of a controlled society, the total visibility and spying, putting him in a position of self-denunciation." Ostensibly the game aims to question the role of people in controlling and capturing in society. The player is cast not as a criminal avoiding constant surveillance but as a security guard faces with the responsibility of upholding justice.
Through Agre, Foucault, Deleuze and Virilio, our discussions of surveillance have focus on the structures and networks of "control society" and the "REALTIME" of the contemporary world. Examining this game also makes me wonder about the possibility for individuals to decide whether or not they want to enforce the networked mediated systems of control, or whether as this game seems to hopefully suggest, it is as much the system (the structures, networks and media) of control as the the agency of the people enacting that system.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
(very) late post on jameson
Jameson suggests in “Cognitive Mapping” (from Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture) that within the space of the postmodern era, all voids and gaps are filled. As “the truth of experience no longer coincides with the place in which it occurs” (349) the individual who experiences this new space becomes schizophrenic. (For this schizophrenia, similar to the disorientation of the subject within Virilio's visual crash, the solution for which Jameson searches may also help to prevent or at least soften the visual crash.) Jameson seems to hope that his aesthetic of cognitive mapping will intensify the individual subject's sense of place in the global system and rescue him from his schizophrenia. Manovich's navagable space of new media is then a symptom of the fragmentation and schizophrenia that Jameson speaks of because the navigator must jump from one discrete object to another to move through it.
Jameson's political agenda here may also relate on some level to Deleuze, who insists that “the crisis of the institutions, which is to say, the progressive and dispersed installation of a new system of domination” calls for “new forms of resistance against the societies of control.” (Postscript on the Societies of Control, p. 7) However, Jameson's desire for totality seems reactionary and perhaps a bit conservative because he assumes that, in the postmodern era, the individual may be completely detached from the local and consumed in the global experience, and if so, that this is a bad thing which must be met with a solution. Unlike Haraway, who embraces the evolution toward the cyborg and the pastiche of postmodern experience, Jameson calls for a return to a more traditional local sense of place within the global system, rather than the saturated global sense.
Jameson's political agenda here may also relate on some level to Deleuze, who insists that “the crisis of the institutions, which is to say, the progressive and dispersed installation of a new system of domination” calls for “new forms of resistance against the societies of control.” (Postscript on the Societies of Control, p. 7) However, Jameson's desire for totality seems reactionary and perhaps a bit conservative because he assumes that, in the postmodern era, the individual may be completely detached from the local and consumed in the global experience, and if so, that this is a bad thing which must be met with a solution. Unlike Haraway, who embraces the evolution toward the cyborg and the pastiche of postmodern experience, Jameson calls for a return to a more traditional local sense of place within the global system, rather than the saturated global sense.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Stallman's Ethical Non-treatise
I appreciate the “humanistic” ends of Richard Stallman’s GNU Project, but I think that the GNU Manifesto’s rhetoric is too moralizing and reads like a sophomoric expose on open source ethics. While I can empathize with Stallman’s enthusiasm and (less so) with his messianic urges, I wish he would run his manifesto through an open source program that removed statements like “…if programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs” and “’Control over the use of one’s ideas’ really constitutes control over other people’s lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult” (5,6). Why all the unfounded confidence about what is good and what is evil? Why all the normative claims (drawn out in an annoying question-and-answer format)? Not everyone is/should be a stout observer of an embarrassingly watered-down Stallman-Kant ethical paradigm. Why is Stallman calling forth on it to save his a**? There are ways of constructing more convincing arguments, especially for what seems like such a promising idea, without assuming the role of Answer God or making ethical judgments. But perhaps I have just assumed the role of a certain Debbie Downer at this late hour.
Anyway, take care, ya’ll.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
here, at the end of things
I have to say these last readings were pretty dull. As we have (among other things) been discussing all semester, the development of the internet is an incredible thing, particularly because of the way it allows collective action of one form or another. While I'm sure people like Stallman are brilliant in their respective fields, this stuff is dense with outdated jargon and palpable smugness (and why does that one guy keep talking about hacking?), which is annoying even when it's justified. I'll admit that I'm more or less completely ignorant when it comes to programming, so I may have missed the point completely, but all these just seem like examples of the globalizing force of the internet, viewed from the inside of the machine rather than the outside. Programs become obsolete and are replaced by new models, and so on--I believe the idea of software as text is wonderful, and I hope that the internet really will allow people to connect in a kind of cyberpunk fulfillment of the '60s hippie dream, but I don't see it happening just yet. These articles read like pictures of turning cogs--they will become part of the history of the movement, and remain important, but I don't see how they're enlightening or even particularly interesting to anyone except a mechanic.
Yes, anyway, it's been fun.
Yes, anyway, it's been fun.
In Defense of GNU
While I think Richard Stallman is an ass, I do not think he's wrong. I think a number of people are misunderstanding what free software is about. Shane compares free software to free paint, though I would argue that this is a misinterpretation-- paint is both rival and exclusive while the ideas behind/surrounding a painting are not. (In fact, it's worth noting the differences between rival and exclusive goods:
* Non-rival/Exclusive - my consumption does not preclude yours, but you can be prevented from consuming by the producer. e.g. Concert
* Non-exclusive/Rival – cannot prevent you from consuming, but your consumption (in principle) precludes mine e.g. drinking water from a public lake
* Non-rival and non-exclusive: Cannot prevent access (for practical purposes) and consumption of one doesn’t preclude consumption by someone else. e.g. street lighting.)
It's actually interesting that Shane brought up art in the context of open source software because the open source 'ideals' have been brought to the art world where many artists argue for the ability to freely appropriate art to create more art. This GNU-like licensing model has inspired the Creative Commons movement (http://creativecommons.org/).
Stallman's ideas are quite applicable to many products of our intelligence (not only software and art.) Unlike most people in the class, I think he is right. I open source most of the code that I write for my computer science classes (e.g.: http://code.google.com/p/racemakr/ , http://code.google.com/p/collagemakr/ , http://code.google.com/p/lifethreads/) as well as the art that I create (e.g.: https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/mcm0750/Computational+Algorithm#ComputationalAlgorithm-001 , https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/MarkTribe/d%27Entre+les+Morts )
* Non-rival/Exclusive - my consumption does not preclude yours, but you can be prevented from consuming by the producer. e.g. Concert
* Non-exclusive/Rival – cannot prevent you from consuming, but your consumption (in principle) precludes mine e.g. drinking water from a public lake
* Non-rival and non-exclusive: Cannot prevent access (for practical purposes) and consumption of one doesn’t preclude consumption by someone else. e.g. street lighting.)
It's actually interesting that Shane brought up art in the context of open source software because the open source 'ideals' have been brought to the art world where many artists argue for the ability to freely appropriate art to create more art. This GNU-like licensing model has inspired the Creative Commons movement (http://creativecommons.org/).
Stallman's ideas are quite applicable to many products of our intelligence (not only software and art.) Unlike most people in the class, I think he is right. I open source most of the code that I write for my computer science classes (e.g.: http://code.google.com/p/racemakr/ , http://code.google.com/p/collagemakr/ , http://code.google.com/p/lifethreads/) as well as the art that I create (e.g.: https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/mcm0750/Computational+Algorithm#ComputationalAlgorithm-001 , https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/MarkTribe/d%27Entre+les+Morts )
Stallman has some attitude
In The GNU Manifesto, Stallman writes that “extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used.” Here, Stallman has unhelpfully reworded the Law of Demand in sensational terms. Of course charging a price for something means that fewer people will use it, but this is how our economy functions. It seems that Stallman is unhappy having to pay for anything, and would prefer to live in a society where everyone works hard for everyone else without quantified incentives. Perhaps with software, it is particularly realistic to expect that we might actually move in this direction. If so, then the GNU Manifesto is really just a practical case of a much larger manifesto against capitalism in general.
The examples of free labor we have discussed so far seem largely to be fundamentally secondary activities. We may labor for YouTube by posting content to their website, but one could not pursue YouTube posting as a full-time job. It seems that producing free software must also remain secondary to the business of proprietary software. If the software industry were entirely open source, I would expect that there would be many fewer professional programmers. And if GNU is destined to remain secondary to proprietary programming, then I don’t see why Stallman must make the relationship between open source and proprietary software sound so antagonistic.
The GNU all seems a little self righteous and impractical. I understand Stallman's 'moral' qualms with charging people for things that can be used for the betterment of society, but to say that a programmer would be selfish to desire reward for his work is just absurd. The truth of the matter is that we live in a capitalist society and that means money and competition are everything. The amount of talented programmers there are right now is because of the fact that programming has become such a successful career. If you cut their paycheck then the amount of people desiring the job will diminish significantly. I think it would be great if advertising and donations could support the necessary staff to keep up with today's demands, I just don't think it is feasible. Another thing that must be considered is the fact that if people want free software it is easy enough to get it. Most softwares only require a serial number and those are not difficult to get a hand on. I agree that the system now is not great, the prices for most software are outrageous. However it is a cycle, the high prices force people to download softwares illegally. Through doing this though they also keep the prices high. So I am not sure what the perfect system is. It would be great if programming was paid through fame and recognition, and that the programmers could all be paid their fair share. In the end their job is extremely important for the world because they do in fact make many jobs way more productive through their softwares. They impact many markets and many lives, so they should be rewarded in some form. I just think Stallman has gone a little too 'free' in his idea, especially for the western world.
Free Beer is Free Beer is Free
I too think that GNU's shift to regarding open-source software as like free speech instead of free air or free beer is disingenuous. When source code becomes both available to read and legal to study, the costs of engineering an analogue — a closed, proprietary copy — drop dramatically. At the heart of the source are the algorithms, which are ideas more than code, and once these are read and distributed, other companies can use them as they see fit. This is one of the main reasons why "free as in free speech" often just ends up meaning free beer. There are hardly any companies which make their profits directly off open-source software; they usually give it away and sell support. Stallmann should get off his high horse.
terranova and social factory
i was interested in the idea of free labor and the social factory that terranova brings up in one of the readings. terranova describes the “social factory” as "a process whereby 'work processes have shifted from the factory to society, thereby setting in motion a truly complex machine.'" this social factory seems to just follow up and continue in the tradition of the way discipline implicates itself into society in Deleuze's postscript on societes of control, and additionally, to the way google turns work into play and play into work and how user-generated content (like on youtube) is produced in the guise of play.
nothingnu
Quite simply, the GNU project really has nothing to do with free speech. Free software and free speech or free air cannot be likened to each other. The claim that limiting the amount of people that can access software limits the ways that it can be used and therefore falls under the domain of free speech is completely ridiculous. Let’s compare this to the act of painting. I think all paint should be free. Charging money for paint limits the amount of people that can use it and therefore the ways in which it can be used. Therefore free paint is free speech. I think anyone can see why this is illogical. Someone may argue that this does not really get to the base of the issue. One could argue that once someone buys the paint he can distribute it however he wants and that this is the true problem with software. The way software can be distributed is limited, but software is different. Unlike bottles of paint, software can be copied. If someone buys paint and then distributes it out, this is not the same as distributing software. For software to be distributed an entire copy of the product must be made. This would be like replicating a bottle of paint (let’s pretend you have some sort of futuristic replicating ray gun) and giving that entire bottle of paint to your friend. Limiting the distribution of software is truly no different than the commodification of any other object that is bought and sold. Charging for software is perfectly reasonable. A group of individuals produces a product and sells it. Software is no different. I find it difficult to view software differently than any other product. Even comparing software to art does not suffice to convince me that it should be free and freely distributable. Sure some people do art for the love of it and do not make any money off of it, but this does not mean that all art should be free. Big time artists can and should sell their work to make money. If you love to do something, whether it is art or programming, the ability to support oneself comfortably doing that thing makes it all the better. If you are producing great art and people are willing to pay for it should you just give it away for free in the name of the love of art? To me this seems silly and the same exact concept can apply to programming. It essentially breaks down to supply and demand. In addition, the programmer is certainly not the only one who is harmed if software is moved toward the GNU ideal. There is an entire industry surrounding software and its function. If something like GNU were to take over, this entire industry would be destroyed. Countless jobs would be lost. Programming is not the only aspect of software production. Software is a huge industry and attempting to make everything in this industry free is somewhat economically irresponsible. GNU would directly damage our capitalist economy. Truly GNU is repressed communism coming out. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it shouldn’t be disguised under some democratic ideal of free speech.
The Internet is Serious Business
I was intrigued by the "cheerleader beating" video professor Chun mentioned in class on Wednesday. There are many connections to new and digital media in this one short example, and it reflects on the direction our culture is heading.
Apparently the whole fight was instigated by the victim "trash talking" the other girls – there were six – on myspace. This is a reflection of Danah Boyd’s article on networked publics; the victim was enabled to speak her mind in a public forum on myspace while remaining in the safety of her own room and her relative anonymity online. However, the result goes against my own hypothesis about how these networked publics work; I thought that next to no one really read all of the stuff posted on myspace, and as it turns out, people do. And the feeling of safety is merely an illusion; although trash talking to someone's face could result in an impromptu fight, trash talking online can give people the opportunity to form a group, conspire, and attack without warning.
After the trash talking, the six girls invited the victim to one of their homes with the explicit purpose of beating the crap out of her. More importantly, they videotaped it, planning to upload it to YouTube. In a time where absurdity and illegality will draw the most hits (good, old fashioned entertainment is so passé), they were enabled by new media to spread the word of, well, their brutality and inability to take comments made over the internet with a grain of salt to people all over the world.
But what is the causality here? Are we more violent, or promiscuous, or absurd, because of new media? Or is new media just providing us with an outlet for something that’s always been there? There’s something to be said for the fact that only something ridiculous or obscene will get noticed in the plethora of crap currently on the internet, so people do have incentive to go over the top to get noticed. However, it is just untrue to say that new media is creating the violence in these girls.
We saw this argument over video games not too many years ago (and it is still going on). Are video games making our kids more violent? In my opinion, absolutely not; we’re just giving kids an outlet to express that violence. And although that’s not necessarily a good thing, we can’t blame and shun the technology itself. It’s our deprived nature that causes us to utilize technology in these ways; the technology is just a scapegoat.
A few more points of note: Glenn Beck blames fame and fortune and our "reality culture" filled with role models that break the law. Ironically, he contributes to this drive for fame, no matter what the costs, by talking on the subject for ten minutes and by having a copy of the video playing for at least five of those minutes.
In the words of some 1337 Hax0rz: The internet is serious business.
Apparently the whole fight was instigated by the victim "trash talking" the other girls – there were six – on myspace. This is a reflection of Danah Boyd’s article on networked publics; the victim was enabled to speak her mind in a public forum on myspace while remaining in the safety of her own room and her relative anonymity online. However, the result goes against my own hypothesis about how these networked publics work; I thought that next to no one really read all of the stuff posted on myspace, and as it turns out, people do. And the feeling of safety is merely an illusion; although trash talking to someone's face could result in an impromptu fight, trash talking online can give people the opportunity to form a group, conspire, and attack without warning.
After the trash talking, the six girls invited the victim to one of their homes with the explicit purpose of beating the crap out of her. More importantly, they videotaped it, planning to upload it to YouTube. In a time where absurdity and illegality will draw the most hits (good, old fashioned entertainment is so passé), they were enabled by new media to spread the word of, well, their brutality and inability to take comments made over the internet with a grain of salt to people all over the world.
But what is the causality here? Are we more violent, or promiscuous, or absurd, because of new media? Or is new media just providing us with an outlet for something that’s always been there? There’s something to be said for the fact that only something ridiculous or obscene will get noticed in the plethora of crap currently on the internet, so people do have incentive to go over the top to get noticed. However, it is just untrue to say that new media is creating the violence in these girls.
We saw this argument over video games not too many years ago (and it is still going on). Are video games making our kids more violent? In my opinion, absolutely not; we’re just giving kids an outlet to express that violence. And although that’s not necessarily a good thing, we can’t blame and shun the technology itself. It’s our deprived nature that causes us to utilize technology in these ways; the technology is just a scapegoat.
A few more points of note: Glenn Beck blames fame and fortune and our "reality culture" filled with role models that break the law. Ironically, he contributes to this drive for fame, no matter what the costs, by talking on the subject for ten minutes and by having a copy of the video playing for at least five of those minutes.
In the words of some 1337 Hax0rz: The internet is serious business.
Guh-noo
The Gnu Manifesto seems preoccupied with the need to do this stuff legally, which is interesting and honorable and all that, but to the extent that programmers, when they “must choose between friendship and obeying the law … many decide that friendship is more important. But those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice.” The extent of my experience with programming communities, as well as those that observe this “golden rule” aspect of the obligation to share, I am aware of a massively only-barely underground community of people committed to doing whatever it takes (breaking the law, etc.) to share. Software, music, movies, etc. This gets interesting, though, when these forums eventually become places in which presumably more advanced programmers exploit the system in order to distribute malicious viruses under the guise of the generous sharing of otherwise unobtainably expensive software. This seems to be a recoiling against the bandwagon effect of those outside the ring of programmers and hackers taking advantage of their efforts – reaping what others sow. Stallman seems to have no qualms with the surface level users benefiting from his efforts, but then again, he doesn’t have as much to lose by doing so – while operating within the realm of legality he doesn’t risk prison sentences and exorbitant fines. Those hackers and crackers of commercial software are in a much more dangerous position when they chose to share, and they do not feel willing to be in that position for the sake of people who do nothing in return. In a sense, in lieu of the law amongst networks of law-breaking users, free-market economy crops up in that, while not charging money, the master hackers provide the commodities, and expect other people’s efforts to allow them the use of other programs – in effect, an unofficial barter system. And viruses are the vigilante police system.
(Also, this notion of good system software becoming “free, just like air” enters the user into this technological realm, this virtual reality. System software is essential and organic to this alternate world, and noone can not breathe. But I don't know if I'm going anywhere with this.)
IT'S BEEN SWELL <3<3<3
(Also, this notion of good system software becoming “free, just like air” enters the user into this technological realm, this virtual reality. System software is essential and organic to this alternate world, and noone can not breathe. But I don't know if I'm going anywhere with this.)
IT'S BEEN SWELL <3<3<3
Improv Everywhere
In the concluding lecture, Professor Chun mentioned the phenomenon called flashmobs, a mob of people who apparently gather at random, taking over whatever place they picked. Before Professor Chun mentioned it, I had actually never heard that term but it reminded me of another group called Improv Everywhere which takes the idea of the flashmob to the next level by giving it a purpose. One of Improv Everywhere's latest escapades was to recruit people to go to Grand Central Station in New York and freeze. Now what did this accomplish? What Improv Everywhere says that they try to do is create scenes of chaos and joy in public places. But also, what is interesting is that they tend to record everything that they do, from creating giant human bullseye targets in a park in NYC to having a No Pants Subway Ride, to create a sense of community. They, like the flashmobs, are creating a community from virtual reality (their listservs) and bringing them into real life where by staging these "missions", they can connect the random people who otherwise may never have met each other. But even this connection is very ephemeral because it doesn't really seem to encourage long term friendship or contacts. It creates a shared sense of purpose, a few laughs together, maybe an exchange of names but no real permanent connection. Plus, there isn't even a forum of any sort on their website which would encourage a real connection or something so that one could link together, let's say, a username with a face. It is really a project, managed by a very few, with hundreds of volunteers who are willing to bring the project to fruition even without any credit. In return, those volunteers get the publicity of being recorded doing these "missions"; they are photographed, videotaped, and posted all over the internet along with the rest of the volunteers that happened to be "captured". Maybe in this internet culture, that is all that people ask for. For a chance to do something interesting and have it publicized. To be in the spotlight, even if it is with hundreds of other people. After all, who doesn't want to be a celebrity?
Putting the Work Back in Artwork
Terranova’s discussion of the desire for labor (particularly the detailed, involved labor of programming) as being immanent in the late capitalist digital economy led me to think about one area of the digital world that seems strangely averse to any labor whatsoever. I’ve become frustrated with the works of the artist collective MTAA, and with the “Synthetic Performances” of Eva and Franco Mattes. The act of recreating seminal performance artworks in Second Life, or of turning On Kawara’s “day paintings” into a cheap news source, seems intended to cheekily comment on the curious ways in which digital media give us instant gratification and devalue physical and mental effort. But, at the same time, these works ignore the constructive desire for work that new media engender. Perhaps MTAA’s “One-Year Performance Video” could be seen as a step in that direction, but the fact that the user’s “work” of recreating the one-year performance could be safely minimized and ignored suggests otherwise. Because these recreations are not only plainly derivative, but appropriated in such a way that the involved labor that gave the original work meaning is totally circumvented, they seem little more than pranks. If we also take Manovich’s “Generation Flash” artworks (which are more “cute” than “cutting edge”) into account, there seems little to be hopeful about.
Yesterday, though, I stopped in to hear artist Joseph DeLappe speak to Mark Tribe’s Digital Art class and found an antidote to the depressing weightlessness (if I may) of other digital art I had seen. In what appears to be a direct answer to the Mattes duo, DeLappe, for his Salt Satyagraha Online, created a Gandhi avatar in Second Life and reenacted Gandhi’s historic 240-mile march to the sea. Over 26 days, using a customized treadmill, DeLappe directed the avatar across more of Second Life than any one person has probably ever seen, picking up friends along the way and building the march into a community. In order to do this, DeLappe actually walked those 240 miles himself. Unlike many other digital artworks, the Salt Satyagraha Online isn’t dead on arrival from too much theorizing. DeLappe said he discovered the project’s purpose by doing it, becoming strangely connected to his avatar and enjoying the delayed gratification of experiencing Second Life (in all its strangeness) without flying to get anywhere. He put the “work” back into “artwork” for the online space. He also lost 6 pounds.
I don’t mean to be a Manovich and suggest that this is where digital art is going and everyone must follow Joe DeLappe’s example. But who knows? Something might come of it.
Yesterday, though, I stopped in to hear artist Joseph DeLappe speak to Mark Tribe’s Digital Art class and found an antidote to the depressing weightlessness (if I may) of other digital art I had seen. In what appears to be a direct answer to the Mattes duo, DeLappe, for his Salt Satyagraha Online, created a Gandhi avatar in Second Life and reenacted Gandhi’s historic 240-mile march to the sea. Over 26 days, using a customized treadmill, DeLappe directed the avatar across more of Second Life than any one person has probably ever seen, picking up friends along the way and building the march into a community. In order to do this, DeLappe actually walked those 240 miles himself. Unlike many other digital artworks, the Salt Satyagraha Online isn’t dead on arrival from too much theorizing. DeLappe said he discovered the project’s purpose by doing it, becoming strangely connected to his avatar and enjoying the delayed gratification of experiencing Second Life (in all its strangeness) without flying to get anywhere. He put the “work” back into “artwork” for the online space. He also lost 6 pounds.
I don’t mean to be a Manovich and suggest that this is where digital art is going and everyone must follow Joe DeLappe’s example. But who knows? Something might come of it.
Open Source = Open To Everyone?
Do you use open source software?
How many average users do you know that have some level of programming skill? Given a few lines of source code, would your mother, your friend - even you know what to do with it? (CS concentrators need not reply.) Stallman writes:
"Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes."
Are users even likely to even have the desire to make any changes? Right now, the software giants of the world - Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc. - are creating programs that, at least seemingly, appear to provide all of the features & services that a user could ever need. But could this change anytime soon?
It's already apparent that more and more users are starting to get sick of software costs. More and more users resort to "software piracy," with cracks and keygens replacing CDs and receipts. The only way that open source software can gain more mainstream popularity is if:
a. Enough people know how to manipulate software so that support is decentralized. Stallman claims that "...you can hire any available person to fix your problem;" right now, this is simply not the case. In fact, this brings up a greater need:
b. Enough people gain computer proficiency, and knowledge about the open-source model. Right now, it's simply easier for the average consumer to trudge down to their local Wal-Mart, purchase a piece of software, and use it. It would take more widespread knowledge than now to recognize the flaws of commercial software, which brings me to the final point:
c. Open-Source Software must function at the same level as regular software. A great deal of open-source software seems to be in constant beta & bug testing, or their interfaces are unintuitive to regular users. Step-by-step tutorials, almost expected in today's software, often give wayside to internet forums - not exactly the friendliest place for "newbies."
There is hope. OpenOffice, a free source alternative to Microsoft Office, has been gaining popularity in the media. It's easy to use, maintains the same functionality as Office, and - most importantly to the average user - it's free. Check it out. Maybe in a few years, a user-friendly open-source operating system will gain widespread popularity. (Seriously, how many people can hear the word "Ubuntu" and keep a straight face?)
How many average users do you know that have some level of programming skill? Given a few lines of source code, would your mother, your friend - even you know what to do with it? (CS concentrators need not reply.) Stallman writes:
"Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes."
Are users even likely to even have the desire to make any changes? Right now, the software giants of the world - Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc. - are creating programs that, at least seemingly, appear to provide all of the features & services that a user could ever need. But could this change anytime soon?
It's already apparent that more and more users are starting to get sick of software costs. More and more users resort to "software piracy," with cracks and keygens replacing CDs and receipts. The only way that open source software can gain more mainstream popularity is if:
a. Enough people know how to manipulate software so that support is decentralized. Stallman claims that "...you can hire any available person to fix your problem;" right now, this is simply not the case. In fact, this brings up a greater need:
b. Enough people gain computer proficiency, and knowledge about the open-source model. Right now, it's simply easier for the average consumer to trudge down to their local Wal-Mart, purchase a piece of software, and use it. It would take more widespread knowledge than now to recognize the flaws of commercial software, which brings me to the final point:
c. Open-Source Software must function at the same level as regular software. A great deal of open-source software seems to be in constant beta & bug testing, or their interfaces are unintuitive to regular users. Step-by-step tutorials, almost expected in today's software, often give wayside to internet forums - not exactly the friendliest place for "newbies."
There is hope. OpenOffice, a free source alternative to Microsoft Office, has been gaining popularity in the media. It's easy to use, maintains the same functionality as Office, and - most importantly to the average user - it's free. Check it out. Maybe in a few years, a user-friendly open-source operating system will gain widespread popularity. (Seriously, how many people can hear the word "Ubuntu" and keep a straight face?)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
it's a wonderful internet.
The last few week's readings have brought me full circle in my attitudes towards new media. I started out this semester with an unquestioned admiration for new media. I believed all the hype about the freedom that the Internet and Web 2.0 would give to us all. Every one of us can share our thoughts with the world for free, we are all equal on the Web, it's an informational revolution, etc...
Throughout this course, we've been forced to investigate and tear apart every illusion that new media technologies put out. I've learned to see beyond the surface freedom of many new media objects to the control systems at work. I started picking up on the themes we discussed almost every time I turned on my computer. Although I still found new media objects to be cool, it wasn't magical anymore. I became a new media cynic.
My wide-eyed wonder at new media began returning with the unit on convergence. The example of Tribal Peace and other truly user-controlled archives brought back my old image of the Internet as a freedom-giving medium. Then came this last unit on Free and Open Source Software. The opportunities for collaboration and creativity on a completely new level reappeared. Biella Coleman writes, “This element of non-discrimination, coupled with the broad nature of FOSS's philosophical foundation, enables the easy adoption of FOSS technologies and facilitates its translatability” (Coleman 5). It seems like the FOSS model may be that device that allows for true new media freedom. Users of all backgrounds, skill sets, and motivations can come together to share their talents and ideas and create fantastic things that challenge and expand our very concept of media.
That, or they'll all just give up and stalk people on Facebook.
---------
Thanks, Professor Chun, Erika, and Josh! It's been fun.
Peace out, MC23.
Throughout this course, we've been forced to investigate and tear apart every illusion that new media technologies put out. I've learned to see beyond the surface freedom of many new media objects to the control systems at work. I started picking up on the themes we discussed almost every time I turned on my computer. Although I still found new media objects to be cool, it wasn't magical anymore. I became a new media cynic.
My wide-eyed wonder at new media began returning with the unit on convergence. The example of Tribal Peace and other truly user-controlled archives brought back my old image of the Internet as a freedom-giving medium. Then came this last unit on Free and Open Source Software. The opportunities for collaboration and creativity on a completely new level reappeared. Biella Coleman writes, “This element of non-discrimination, coupled with the broad nature of FOSS's philosophical foundation, enables the easy adoption of FOSS technologies and facilitates its translatability” (Coleman 5). It seems like the FOSS model may be that device that allows for true new media freedom. Users of all backgrounds, skill sets, and motivations can come together to share their talents and ideas and create fantastic things that challenge and expand our very concept of media.
That, or they'll all just give up and stalk people on Facebook.
---------
Thanks, Professor Chun, Erika, and Josh! It's been fun.
Peace out, MC23.
open sauce
I remember way back in the dot com boom a friend of ours brought home a bottle of 'open sauce' hot sauce from a convention; I didn't know what open source was at the time but supposedly this source from an open source recipe with a community working on it. Pretty cool, or hot, take your pick = )
But does open source hold up for material goods which have replication costs (as opposed to digital goods for which the constant reproduction and evolution costs only man-hours)? I read about a site recently which called itself an open source manufacturing site, in that designs for products would be created, refined, tested, and approved by a community; and the product would be produced by a central entity. From our readings however, it would seem that "open source" defines more than just an openness of the product for collaboration - a ream of clarifications apply like making sure all later incarnations of the product are also "open."
Stallman's talk of a future where everyone does what they love (in his example programming) freely and thus more productively begs the obvious question 'how do people who don't love programming participate in this utopia?' Stallman advocates deriving happiness from creativity over money; because as a programmer he has a way to express his creativity through his trade, but who expresses their creativity working an assembly line? Marx addressed this issue also, talking about a worker becoming alienated - Stallman felt alienated when forced to separate software and programmers proprietarily. Whether open source could solve alienation for material industries is another question
But does open source hold up for material goods which have replication costs (as opposed to digital goods for which the constant reproduction and evolution costs only man-hours)? I read about a site recently which called itself an open source manufacturing site, in that designs for products would be created, refined, tested, and approved by a community; and the product would be produced by a central entity. From our readings however, it would seem that "open source" defines more than just an openness of the product for collaboration - a ream of clarifications apply like making sure all later incarnations of the product are also "open."
Stallman's talk of a future where everyone does what they love (in his example programming) freely and thus more productively begs the obvious question 'how do people who don't love programming participate in this utopia?' Stallman advocates deriving happiness from creativity over money; because as a programmer he has a way to express his creativity through his trade, but who expresses their creativity working an assembly line? Marx addressed this issue also, talking about a worker becoming alienated - Stallman felt alienated when forced to separate software and programmers proprietarily. Whether open source could solve alienation for material industries is another question
unrealistic of open source software
Open source software/free software are programs those licenses give users the freedom to run the program for any purpose, to study and modify the program, and to redistribute copies of either the original or modified program. GNU is a ideal form of open source software, Stallman has carefully explained all the possible problems and benefits this free software would bring. His manifesto is convincing but idealistic to me. His friendly argument of “many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive. Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the people who are best at it, “is what people want to believe in but is not a social fact. Many programmers want to be rewarded for their contribution to the society. As Microsoft Windows owns a significant market share and Microsoft is one of proprietary software proponents, it is really hard to convince people to uninstall the proprietary software which provides security and service. The society nowadays is not ready for open source software to dominate, if so, then all the companies that generate profits through patent would all go bankrupt and people would all lose their jobs. Open source software only works in a world where “nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a eek on required tasks…”
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
We-Speak
One thing which has got me thinking this week was the idea brought up by Terranova, which many others have alluded to, that “we are passing from a Cartesian model of thought based on the singular idea of cogito (I think) to a collective or plural cogitamus (we think).” This coupled with the idea of digital networks got me thinking about the political mindset of the country, and the way it seems we are having a larger divide between liberals and conservatives. It seems our country has moved to two great “we think” groups instead of the “I think.” This causes a large problem in the realm of politics when people stop thinking for themselves anymore, democracy devolves into a fight of a halved majority, which is in constant flux, and never allows a minority voice. The idea of the “we” always benefits the majority, and minority groups find it harder and harder to find an adequate voice. This can tie into what Srinivasan was saying about marginalized communities, and also our readings during the week on Networks and power, as one needs to surrender themselves to the system in order to attack it from the inside out. I also fear this “we think” model because of the social implications it can entail when we stop recognizing individuals and just acknowledge group mentality. It seems that people, much like high school politics, will fail to branch out and experience other people and much rather experience the faux-individuals in each of their groups, devolving to a teenage mode of social interaction. What could also result from this fractioning of groups instead of individuals is class warfare, minority vs. majority conflicts, or a heightened risk of violence. I feel we should fear this “utopian” we-think model because of the fractioning that would inevitably occur.
Freedom-->Obligation
As Coar and Stallman and Raymond all acknowledge, freedom to use other people’s work and source code enables collaboration and thus quick and effective development of programs. Coar writes” Since our purpose is to make evolution easy, we require that modification be made easy.” This suggests a utilitarian edge to the Free Software/Open source that permeates the GNU manifesto and the Open Source definition—-collaboration is important because it helps people benefit from the evolution of these programs.
Its fascinating to me, though, that in FOSS what is dubbed “freedom of speech” is actually freedom to copy, and openly so. Raymond writes, “It is absolutely critical not that the coordinator be able to originate designs of exceptional brilliance, but that he recognize good design ideas from others.” In the desire to achieve total utility and software evolution, FOSS discards originality. The “digital artisans,” working out of voluntary passion for programming, privilege collaboration over individuality, utility over creativity.
If programmers are artists as Cramer suggests, shouldn't they should be given the right to create un-collaboratively if desired? Stallman answers no, writing that “because programs are used rather than read and enjoyed…creates a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually.” Because programs are functional, he says, programmers shouldn’t have privacy rights to their creations. In my opinion, this is just another example of valuing utility over creativity or originality. Though he dubs this philosophy as free, it seems to me like just another example of Deleuze’s idea that new control tactics are instituted in our society under the guise of freedom and mobility. FOSS takes creative control and originality out of the hands of the individual programmer while replacing it with a freedom (read: obligation) to share and contribute to the goal of utility. As Terranova says, free internet labor is inseparable from the “outernet” late capitalist system—perhaps FOSS is a way to present a capitalist goal of efficiency and utility using a new discourse of collective knowledge and free collaboration.
Its fascinating to me, though, that in FOSS what is dubbed “freedom of speech” is actually freedom to copy, and openly so. Raymond writes, “It is absolutely critical not that the coordinator be able to originate designs of exceptional brilliance, but that he recognize good design ideas from others.” In the desire to achieve total utility and software evolution, FOSS discards originality. The “digital artisans,” working out of voluntary passion for programming, privilege collaboration over individuality, utility over creativity.
If programmers are artists as Cramer suggests, shouldn't they should be given the right to create un-collaboratively if desired? Stallman answers no, writing that “because programs are used rather than read and enjoyed…creates a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually.” Because programs are functional, he says, programmers shouldn’t have privacy rights to their creations. In my opinion, this is just another example of valuing utility over creativity or originality. Though he dubs this philosophy as free, it seems to me like just another example of Deleuze’s idea that new control tactics are instituted in our society under the guise of freedom and mobility. FOSS takes creative control and originality out of the hands of the individual programmer while replacing it with a freedom (read: obligation) to share and contribute to the goal of utility. As Terranova says, free internet labor is inseparable from the “outernet” late capitalist system—perhaps FOSS is a way to present a capitalist goal of efficiency and utility using a new discourse of collective knowledge and free collaboration.
Stallman and Girl Talk
Some criticisms to Stallman’s GNU Manifesto seem to come straight from another debate over economies of intellectual property which many of us are still slightly traumatized by, the Napster-ization of music distribution. Gem brought this up in her post, and was broader, mentioning free movies, etc. and described how the very free-ness of content that makes music so much easier to enjoy is also destroying the music industry. While these are legitimate concerns, new forms of music creation and mixing seem to support a kind of “Free Music” which would follow in the footsteps of Stallman’s GNU.
Is the suffering of the music industry hard evidence that Stallman’s ideal world of free software is an unattainable utopia? The music industry is groaning for reasons that Stallman would likely uphold as an example of free use. In fact, Stallman would probably have argued that the music companies should be punished for restricting the use of the creation of musicians, though it is debatable whether downloading a song for listening pleasure could be classified as “using” the song in the same way that one would “use” software. In reality, Internet piracy poses a direct threat to the music industry, and challenges the assumption that Stallman makes of programmers, which is that they will continue to create simply for the joy of creating, even if economic incentives are discontinued or diminished. The music industry, reeling in pain, would have us all know that it is a testament to the impossibility of having artists pursue creative careers when they cannot hope to see direct profits. Of course it remains to be seen to some extent whether this cry of anguish is simply that of a failed form of distribution or that of the artists themselves.
Another current phenomenon in music production resonates much more strongly with “free” as it applies to Stallman’s free software. Many artists, such as Girl Talk and DJ’s in general, use existing music as ingredients to create mixes or blends which are clearly newly artistic and expressive but are also clearly reliant on the work of others. These artists, like the idealized programmers in Stallman’s GNU universe, collaborate in a multi-step joint creative act. For these musicians, it seems unfair that they should be prevented from distributing their work as long as it adds significantly to what they work with. More complicated is the question of how these artists procure the songs with which they work. It seems limiting to the artistic potential of music to force them to pay for every song; Stallman would have the process of music creation be an inclusive and collaborative one. But then, maybe simply listening to music represents a collaboration in the creative act, and hence all music listeners should be allowed free access to all music.
Ultimately, there seems to be a fundamental opposition between extending the creative process in a way which makes it easier for all users and facilitates creation of better works, and the establishment of concrete incentives for the completion of quality creation. This contradiction applies to many new media.
Is the suffering of the music industry hard evidence that Stallman’s ideal world of free software is an unattainable utopia? The music industry is groaning for reasons that Stallman would likely uphold as an example of free use. In fact, Stallman would probably have argued that the music companies should be punished for restricting the use of the creation of musicians, though it is debatable whether downloading a song for listening pleasure could be classified as “using” the song in the same way that one would “use” software. In reality, Internet piracy poses a direct threat to the music industry, and challenges the assumption that Stallman makes of programmers, which is that they will continue to create simply for the joy of creating, even if economic incentives are discontinued or diminished. The music industry, reeling in pain, would have us all know that it is a testament to the impossibility of having artists pursue creative careers when they cannot hope to see direct profits. Of course it remains to be seen to some extent whether this cry of anguish is simply that of a failed form of distribution or that of the artists themselves.
Another current phenomenon in music production resonates much more strongly with “free” as it applies to Stallman’s free software. Many artists, such as Girl Talk and DJ’s in general, use existing music as ingredients to create mixes or blends which are clearly newly artistic and expressive but are also clearly reliant on the work of others. These artists, like the idealized programmers in Stallman’s GNU universe, collaborate in a multi-step joint creative act. For these musicians, it seems unfair that they should be prevented from distributing their work as long as it adds significantly to what they work with. More complicated is the question of how these artists procure the songs with which they work. It seems limiting to the artistic potential of music to force them to pay for every song; Stallman would have the process of music creation be an inclusive and collaborative one. But then, maybe simply listening to music represents a collaboration in the creative act, and hence all music listeners should be allowed free access to all music.
Ultimately, there seems to be a fundamental opposition between extending the creative process in a way which makes it easier for all users and facilitates creation of better works, and the establishment of concrete incentives for the completion of quality creation. This contradiction applies to many new media.
To AWOL's post:
But you wrote "we" have iPods, iPhones. So even if in their convergence they are trying to sell something to you by making you feel individual (consider, "think different"), in the end, "we" all have a certain kinship with each other because we all have these same things. And that is comforting to us, because of the fragmentation that Jenkins was describing. We'd like to think that we're all independent beings, but we like that we are part of these massive indy movements selling/suggesting that we are individuals who think different, because that way we can think different together.
i excersise my rights when i buy what i want, because i want to buy
Reading Raymond’s article, I was struck again by the surprisingly close relationship of the the internet’s democratic and capitalistic tendencies.
“Linus was keeping his hacker/users” constantly stimulated and rewarded––” Raymond writes, “stimulated by the prospect of having an ego-satisfying piece of the action, rewarded by the sight of constant (even daily) improvements in their work.” The constant present of the internet allows for constant “reward [at] the sight of … their work,” meaning that the developers/beta testers are lured into consuming internet time because of its constant alteration (I think something along these lines was mentioned by Terranova as well). But the constant present of the internet at the same times allows the constant access and participation of anyone (with the abilities––the internet remains a capitalism-like meritocracy) at anytime, regardless of their physical circumstances (except of course access to a computer).
Throughout the article, Raymond discusses the necessity of “listen(ing) to your customers,” of treating them like your primary resource so that they can become your primary resource. Of course what’s magnificent about this idea is that means that “anyone”, as I described, can really get involved in the process of creation. Its an ego-boost, as Raymond so excellently describes/demonstrates. If the most successful websites, as according to Coleman, are those that require the participation in creation of members of the user/customer base, then certainly it is true for programs as well. The pleasure of the internet, and the digital medium generally, as we’ve been studying, is creating an effect. And the pleasure of the internet is creating your own free path through cyberspace––in other words, being free on the cyber-frontier to explore its vastness as you please, having control over the creation of your own cyber-destiny and cyber-identity. So this idea of involving individuals in the construction of a cyber-realm (Linux) is obviously very appealing.
But then there are red-flag words, like “customer,” “consumer,” “successful” and to an extent, “users” (as in a drug user (I loved that pun)) who are constantly “stimulated and rewarded”. The most loved, most successful websites are simply selling the ability to create them. In the same way, Linux and Fetchmail are selling the ability to create and improve them. Raymond discussed the point at which he found it necessary to appeal to larger markets if he were to make Fetchmail (and himself) successful.
Because of the internet’s vastness, it simplifies to an incredible degree the push for larger markets. And capitalism loves such a vast, accessible market whose products are constantly changing. And so do users, because it makes them feel free and their life feel exciting and productive. And capitalism loves happy, addicted users.
Because of the Net’s democratic accessibility, and it’s democratic ability to allow networking, it means that it can be used by corporations to get more labor without the extra costs of communication and coordination (or even the labor itself) that Brooks warns against. And capitalism loves that. So in short, in the case of the internet, the things that make it democratic, also make it capitalistic.
“Linus was keeping his hacker/users” constantly stimulated and rewarded––” Raymond writes, “stimulated by the prospect of having an ego-satisfying piece of the action, rewarded by the sight of constant (even daily) improvements in their work.” The constant present of the internet allows for constant “reward [at] the sight of … their work,” meaning that the developers/beta testers are lured into consuming internet time because of its constant alteration (I think something along these lines was mentioned by Terranova as well). But the constant present of the internet at the same times allows the constant access and participation of anyone (with the abilities––the internet remains a capitalism-like meritocracy) at anytime, regardless of their physical circumstances (except of course access to a computer).
Throughout the article, Raymond discusses the necessity of “listen(ing) to your customers,” of treating them like your primary resource so that they can become your primary resource. Of course what’s magnificent about this idea is that means that “anyone”, as I described, can really get involved in the process of creation. Its an ego-boost, as Raymond so excellently describes/demonstrates. If the most successful websites, as according to Coleman, are those that require the participation in creation of members of the user/customer base, then certainly it is true for programs as well. The pleasure of the internet, and the digital medium generally, as we’ve been studying, is creating an effect. And the pleasure of the internet is creating your own free path through cyberspace––in other words, being free on the cyber-frontier to explore its vastness as you please, having control over the creation of your own cyber-destiny and cyber-identity. So this idea of involving individuals in the construction of a cyber-realm (Linux) is obviously very appealing.
But then there are red-flag words, like “customer,” “consumer,” “successful” and to an extent, “users” (as in a drug user (I loved that pun)) who are constantly “stimulated and rewarded”. The most loved, most successful websites are simply selling the ability to create them. In the same way, Linux and Fetchmail are selling the ability to create and improve them. Raymond discussed the point at which he found it necessary to appeal to larger markets if he were to make Fetchmail (and himself) successful.
Because of the internet’s vastness, it simplifies to an incredible degree the push for larger markets. And capitalism loves such a vast, accessible market whose products are constantly changing. And so do users, because it makes them feel free and their life feel exciting and productive. And capitalism loves happy, addicted users.
Because of the Net’s democratic accessibility, and it’s democratic ability to allow networking, it means that it can be used by corporations to get more labor without the extra costs of communication and coordination (or even the labor itself) that Brooks warns against. And capitalism loves that. So in short, in the case of the internet, the things that make it democratic, also make it capitalistic.
Are Tomatoes Fruit? (Who Cares)
The link from the Stallman article to the article on the ambiguity of the phrase "intellectual property rights" brings up the inadequacies of all language, that language must group dissimilar things, making them seem completely identical in order to be effective and effecient. Every now and then these mistakes cause trouble logically and confusion amongst listeners and speakers, thought they ought to be examined and pointed out, all groups do this to a point and as long as everyone realizes the dissimilarities between the things being grouped there should be no problem with the phrase intellectual property rights, there only needs to be a clarification in the definition. Think of the group of animals known as bears for example or fruits, is a koala really a bear? A tomato really a fruit? Is the thumb a finger? Though not nearly as consequential, ambiguities in the naming of a group occur depending on the context in which they are used. In some cases it won't matter whether your thumb is a finger or your tomato is a fruit, and in the cases where it does, it doesn't mean we should stop using the word finger or fruit.
Free and Open Source Stigma ?
Thinking about free software and the ways that I use it everyday, I’m surprised (and grateful) that so much of it exists. From Mozilla to gmail and all the websites I have acess to and information from. I realize there is a distinction between this kind of free software, and the open source software we have been reading about, although I’m not exactly sure how to draw the line. In terms of open software projects, like the GIMP and Open/NeoOffice, which are open source versions of Photoshop and Microsoft Office Suite, I realized I have a strange aversion to the free versions. Although they have nearly all, or more, of the features of commercial programs, I still bought Microsoft Office a few weeks after getting a laptop because Open/NeoOffice just.. didn’t feel the same. Now I’m trying to figure out why I care? And wondering, how many people do use the free versions compared to the ones you have to pay for? According to this, NeoOffice is undeniably superior to Microsoft Office. After further investigation online, Gimp is generally regarded (by those who have taken a little time to get past the interface) as perfectly comparable to PS, and especially good because of the 1) freeness and 2) support from people who actually helped write the code and care about their product and the users.
I haven’t been able to find any reliable numbers about how many people are using the FOSS vs commercial versions of either program, does anyone have any idea? Now I’m just really curious, and resigned to give the freebies an equal chance.
I haven’t been able to find any reliable numbers about how many people are using the FOSS vs commercial versions of either program, does anyone have any idea? Now I’m just really curious, and resigned to give the freebies an equal chance.
Freedom without Control
Imagine everything being free in the digital world. Free software does indeed make it impossible for software sellers to divide and conquer programmers, but does this not lead to exploitation within the realm of programmers. Free software has too much faith within the programmers. Agre makes the point that capture systems leave a gap between efficiency and control. But as some programmers are more knowledgeable there will undoubtedly be someone that comes to power. Control seems to be unavoidable in all systems, considering human nature. Without control freedom would become unappreciated and taking for granted. Thus not only is control unavoidable, but necessary to keep freedom true desirable, appreciated freedom.
Free vs. Open Source
I was having a hard time completley undersatding the difference between Open Source Software and Free Software until I read this, admittedly biased, paper on the GNU website. In this essay, Stallman gives you the impression that Open Source Software complies with merely a part of the Free Software philosophy - in that human readable source code is made available. He says:
The two are linked by their openness, but to Stallman, Open Source and Free are not synonymous. His final anecdote about the software executive that "supports Linux" with non-free software compatible with the platform really nails home his point - the Open Source movement does not grant the users freedom, but only helps and speeds up the development of the project. Free software is more idealistic, while open source software is more pragmatic. Either way, both are more free than these two guys.
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
The two are linked by their openness, but to Stallman, Open Source and Free are not synonymous. His final anecdote about the software executive that "supports Linux" with non-free software compatible with the platform really nails home his point - the Open Source movement does not grant the users freedom, but only helps and speeds up the development of the project. Free software is more idealistic, while open source software is more pragmatic. Either way, both are more free than these two guys.
Free Software Impact
Would free software have a huge impact on other businesses/companies and professions other than programming? If people could copy, use, and manipulate any and all kinds of software, wouldn’t that hurt music, movie, and game businesses? In the GNU Manifesto, Stallman seems only interested in the programmer's future. Wouldn’t free software also mean free music, movies, and games? The music business is already suffering because people are downloading illegal music files. With free software, people wouldn’t need to buy CDs or buy songs on iTunes, hurting the music business even more.
I also don’t completely understand how source code and free software can be seen as speech, which shouldn’t be limited. These two things make more sense to me as writing, which can be plagiarized. Same with free software as a form of art and expression - can’t art, like poetry, be in someways “plagiarized?”
I also don’t completely understand how source code and free software can be seen as speech, which shouldn’t be limited. These two things make more sense to me as writing, which can be plagiarized. Same with free software as a form of art and expression - can’t art, like poetry, be in someways “plagiarized?”
Brave GNU World
Stallman's GNU Manifesto seems to have some very mixed feelings about the role of the free market in the theoretical "free as air" GNU exchange system. Since a major part of the manifesto contains a litany of questions which essentially challenge his "socialist" ideal with liberal economics ("Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used," "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity", etc.) I would expect to find his answers consistent. But I am reading contradictions on two levels.
The first is the more superficial: while he relegates "creativity" in general to free and open distribution, he does not allow the "handholders" to take part in this system. The software itself, of course, "must be" free; the task of programming should not be associated with the software developers, but should be released into the realm of public domain; advertising will self-perpetuate without the need to pay for anything like an "advertising division." In this system, as Professor Chun pointed out in lecture, the circulation and development of GNU software seems almost Marxist. The workers are the same people who use the fruits of their labor. So it's a little bizarre to come across the "handholders," whom Stallman relegates to the position of concurrent but separate free-market trade. He writes, "The service companies will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any particular one." This is the anti-socialist model: a system in which the market takes care of itself.
The second in a little more nuanced: within the "socialist" or "Marxist" system of GNU-trading, there seems to be an inherent reliance on the principles of free trade. He writes that "many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive," reinforcing the parallel to Marx. These programmers, he writes, program for the pleasure of creating new software, or new changes to software. They are intrinsically connected to their work, producing the technology that they will later use. Yet that system only applies to the programmers- an arguably elite group. It's a bizarre twist on Marxism, in that rather than allowing the proletariat (take his underpaid "sales clerk," for example) to reconnect with his labor, this system allows the more elite class of more highly paid programmers (his assessment, not mine) to do so. If the distribution of wealth begins to balance out, the revolution will have occurred from above, and not below.
Maybe it's ineffectual to talk about the technological "revolution" in terms of 19th century philosophy. Perhaps that's reverse-anachronistic or obsolete, and it would be better not to use the terms of manual industrial labor when today, the elite are those who know how to work (the programmers), and the proletariat are those who don't know how, or don't have to.
The first is the more superficial: while he relegates "creativity" in general to free and open distribution, he does not allow the "handholders" to take part in this system. The software itself, of course, "must be" free; the task of programming should not be associated with the software developers, but should be released into the realm of public domain; advertising will self-perpetuate without the need to pay for anything like an "advertising division." In this system, as Professor Chun pointed out in lecture, the circulation and development of GNU software seems almost Marxist. The workers are the same people who use the fruits of their labor. So it's a little bizarre to come across the "handholders," whom Stallman relegates to the position of concurrent but separate free-market trade. He writes, "The service companies will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any particular one." This is the anti-socialist model: a system in which the market takes care of itself.
The second in a little more nuanced: within the "socialist" or "Marxist" system of GNU-trading, there seems to be an inherent reliance on the principles of free trade. He writes that "many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive," reinforcing the parallel to Marx. These programmers, he writes, program for the pleasure of creating new software, or new changes to software. They are intrinsically connected to their work, producing the technology that they will later use. Yet that system only applies to the programmers- an arguably elite group. It's a bizarre twist on Marxism, in that rather than allowing the proletariat (take his underpaid "sales clerk," for example) to reconnect with his labor, this system allows the more elite class of more highly paid programmers (his assessment, not mine) to do so. If the distribution of wealth begins to balance out, the revolution will have occurred from above, and not below.
Maybe it's ineffectual to talk about the technological "revolution" in terms of 19th century philosophy. Perhaps that's reverse-anachronistic or obsolete, and it would be better not to use the terms of manual industrial labor when today, the elite are those who know how to work (the programmers), and the proletariat are those who don't know how, or don't have to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)