|
StacyAdelmanFirstPaper 9 - 21 Jan 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | EDITS READY FOR REVIEW | | | | | |
[1] In the sense that early users of radio and cable were "amateur" | |
>
> | A duck. | | | [2] Though we still do live in a world where patents on video codecs hinder the facility with which we can manipulate video content. | |
>
> | Putting this note here
to reference something I said might reasonably be expected to make
the reader want to know what the connection between these apparently
disparate points is. You don't explain, and I've an intuition you're
not in a position to do so. But if you can, you should. If not, you
shouldn't make the note appear to promise that you
can.
Improved in many
respects, the essay now shows more clearly, however, the difficulty
in reaching far and high for tools with which to interpret the near
and the low. The text now feels too much like Frankfurt-school name
dropping, as you pick a couple of Marcuse quotes and make them stand
for a large lump of undigested complex criticism. Does Marcuse think
what Habermas thinks, or if not how are the relevantly different or
could we have left Habermas out? Is the quote from Horkheimer, which
feels like it is a pompous way of saying the obvious, obvious?
Perhaps the names are more intimidating to the reader than they are
helpful, and it would be simpler to put a simple version of the ideas
in the text, linking to the Frankfurt School writings that contain
those ideas for those who want to see what you've been reading that's
been making you think the thoughts you are presenting. Maybe
authority isn't useful here?
Revising to take account of the fact that YouTube isn't only Justin
Bieber, and that Warner Music is not likely to find a way to claim it
owns the Khan Academy, presents some questions that, as I tried to
say last time, it is only easy to ignore if one stops time now. How
many years, even if YouTube remained the only practicable way for
many or most users to distribute video on the Net (which it most
certainly won't), before the educational and informative and
politically activist uses of the network have been fully grasped, and
are displacing the bullshit? If you do want to get Frankfurt School
about it, commodities that make servitude tolerable or invisible must
compete at price zero against the ubiquitous presence of commodities
that make servitude intolerable and the alternatives visible. What
happens then?
| | | |
|
|
StacyAdelmanFirstPaper 8 - 05 Dec 2011 - Main.StacyAdelman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
EDITS READY FOR REVIEW | | | Commodifying Participation
| |
<
< | Regardless of whether an individual is using YouTube to teach herself differential equations or to watch the latest Jennifer Lopez video, a startling truth remains constant: YouTube is a system that exists merely to quantify the viewer's viability as a consumer. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote presciently in The Culture Industry and Mass Deception (a chapter of Dialectic of Enlightenment) that, to the culture industry, people appear "as statistics on research organization charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique that is used for any type of propaganda." These research organization charts have only become more sophisticated. In selling viewers to advertisers as dehumanized demographic indices (e.g., "male audiences 18-34" to "viewers earning more than $100,000"), YouTube betrays the trust of viewers by monetizing their interiority and encouraging a herder-cattle style approach to the market for goods and services. Providing advertisers detailed statistical analysis of the effectiveness of their adds, including click through rates and conversion, facilitates the next stage in the evolution of commodification, where advertisements have fully ceased to be static broadcast and have become closer to cognizant beings. It seems unjust that individual interiority, the cost of such improved and progressive advertising, should be so readily paid to watch a free video. | >
> | Regardless of whether an individual is using YouTube to teach herself differential equations or to watch the latest Jennifer Lopez video, a startling truth remains constant: YouTube is a system that exists merely to quantify the viewer's viability as a consumer. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote presciently in The Culture Industry and Mass Deception (a chapter of Dialectic of Enlightenment) that, to the culture industry, people appear "as statistics on research organization charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique that is used for any type of propaganda." These research organization charts have only become more sophisticated. In selling viewers to advertisers as dehumanized demographic indices (e.g., "male audiences 18-34" to "viewers earning more than $100,000"), YouTube betrays the trust of viewers by monetizing their interiority and encouraging a herder-cattle style approach to the market for goods and services. Providing advertisers detailed statistical analysis of the effectiveness of their ads, including click through rates and conversion, facilitates the next stage in the evolution of commodification, where advertisements have fully ceased to be static broadcast and have become closer to cognizant beings. It seems unjust that individual interiority, the cost of such improved and progressive advertising, should be so readily paid to watch a free video. | | | |
|
|
StacyAdelmanFirstPaper 7 - 02 Dec 2011 - Main.StacyAdelman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
>
> | EDITS READY FOR REVIEW | | | | |
<
< | YouMarxism: The Frankfurt School, the Internet, and the Shrinking Public Sphere | >
> | Commodity and The New Public Sphere | | | | |
<
< | Something is provided for all so that none may escape. —Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer | >
> | In Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas conceived of a sphere in between the private space of the home and the public space occupied by the state, where individuals could convene to critically reflect upon politics, culture, and identity. Though Habermas is speaking primarily about the public sphere of 18th and 19th centuries, his analysis and those of other Frankfurt School theorists, such as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are instrumental in understanding both the boundless promise and the tremendous waste of the Internet. YouTube provides a simplistic microcosm to explore these ideas and enhance our understanding of otherwise invisible industrial control. | | | | |
>
> | Content and Control
| | | | |
<
< | In Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas conceived of a sphere in between the private space of the home and the public space occupied by the state, where individuals could convene to critically reflect upon politics, culture, and identity. Though Habermas is speaking primarily about the public sphere of 18th and 19th centuries, his analysis and those of other Frankfurt School theorists, such as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are instrumental in understanding both the boundless promise and the tremendous waste of the Internet. YouTube provides a simplistic microcosm to explore these ideas and enhance our understanding of otherwise invisible industrial control. | >
> | Habermas lamented the decline of this so-called bourgeois "public sphere," blaming, among many things, the concentration of economic power. The engorgement of economic power, he observes, in turn produces a call from both the public and the conglomerations themselves to regulate, thereby shrinking the public sphere. The primary mechanism is copyright laws, which allow conglomerations to supplement the tremendous control they have over the production of content with the subsequent control of content. | | | | |
<
< | Censorship Through Regulation
Habermas lamented the decline of this so-called bourgeois "public sphere," blaming, among many things, the concentration of economic power. The engorgement of economic power, he observes, in turn produces a call from both the public and the conglomerations themselves to regulate, thereby shrinking the public sphere. In the case of intellectual property, the call for stricter regulation of property rights of cultural products came as smaller production companies became consumed and transformed into larger ones. The primary mechanism is copyright laws, which allow conglomerations to supplement the tremendous control they have over the production of content with the subsequent control of content. Few other industries allow the producers to control consumers in this way, and in doing so, the culture industry dominates the public sphere. | >
> | YouTube has become one of the predominant mediums for amateur [1] expression. The premise of the site is very much one of a Habermas-ian public sphere. It is through participation and engagement with culture that allow us as a society to progress. YouTube provides the mechanism to translate personal projects into public ones, a process, as Habermas explains, that is crucial to any public sphere. Its mission to "provide a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others" is severely hampered by its Terms and Conditions, which provide an easy procedure that allows copyright owners to remove users' videos and, in essence, shrink our public sphere. YouTomb, a research project by MIT Free Culture, continuously monitored the most popular videos on YouTube and tracked how many were taken down. In a two-month period (December 2008-January 2009), YouTomb noted Warner Music Group alone had taken down over 4,500 videos. | | | | |
<
< | YouTube has become one of the predominant mediums for amateur expression. Its mission to "provide a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others" is severely hampered by its Terms and Conditions, which provide an easy procedure that allows copyright owners to remove users' videos and, in essence, shrink our public sphere. YouTomb, a research project by MIT Free Culture, continuously monitored the most popular videos on YouTube and tracked how many were taken down. In a two-month period from December 2008, YouTomb noted Warner Music Group alone had taken down over 4,500 videos. It is not only exact rips of industry products that face expulsion; remixing, mashups, slash, and tributes all technically fall under YouTube's terms and conditions. Users can fight to have their videos put back up by filing a counter-notice, but many have and will continue to give up. But why should they have to? The premise of the site is very much one of a Habermas-ian public sphere. It is through participation and engagement with culture that allow us as a society to progress. YouTube provides the mechanism to translate personal projects into public ones, a process, as Habermas explains, that is crucial to any public sphere. Intellectual property constrains the use of cultural material and therefore constrains the size and shape of the public sphere. Strangling content in this way results in less discussion and fewer opportunities to learn from fellow users. By appropriating YouTube, the culture industry has stolen space to experiment from the users, pushing them back into roles of passivity and ignorance to different perspectives. | >
> | A necessary assumption of Habermasian cynicism is that concentrated economic power implies control over the means of production. Luckily, we don't live in that world anymore. [2] The Internet generally, and YouTube specifically, have inched the world ever closer to the "utopian possibilities inherent in the technical and technological forces of advanced capitalism and socialism" Marcuse discussed in An Essay on Liberation. Technological advances democratizing production in concert with the infrastructure of connectivity have amplified the effects and possibilities of sharing and participation. The Kahn Academy? is an organization dedicated to providing a free, quality education to anyone, anywhere, anytime. No longer are individuals dependent upon the beneficence of broadcasters for programming in the public interest. By posting free educational YouTube videos that teach an astounding variety of subjects from the most basic level to college level and using a Javascript problem generator to create an almost endless opportunity for practice and application, the Kahn Academy is able to educate even the most remote villages as long as there is one computer and internet access. In the arts, projects such as HitRecord? have embraced an open, collaborative production methodology. Remixing or editing another's posted video, image, or song isn't theft; it's the whole point. Video production has become something political in nature. In wresting away the control of the use of old content and the production of new content, individuals reclaim and redefine the rules of the public sphere as they shift among roles of viewer, analyst, and producer. | | | | |
<
< | Maybe. That depends on
the extent to which the remixing of others' content is necessary
rather than desirable for this experimentation. The point of view you are reusing here was developed in relation to the public spaces of 18th century Europe, as you note, interpreted through the lens of 20th century acquaintance with mass media. These are both valuable points of connection, but we don't live there anymore, and our understanding of the previous terms in the series should be shifting. Here, in particular, you should be asking rather how the new technologies interact with the existing array of copyright limitations (as they are thought of almost everywhere in the world except the US). You might also want to ask how much the copyright policymaking of a single entity, namely Google, now constitutes a supra-jurisdictional set of copyright realities, a subtly beautiful example of Lessig's "code becoming law" idea. | >
> | This, of course, only a fraction YouTube content. Yogi Berra famously said, "If people don't want to come out to the ballpark, how are you going to stop them?" Content in the public interest is not driving most of YouTube's traffic. Instead, the most watched videos in the site's history are Justin Bieber's "Baby" video and a home video called "Charlie bit my finger - again!" In One Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse examines "advanced industrial societies" and the way in which ideology serves to wholly integrate and contain individuals as consumers. That is, to encourage consumers to avoid the ballpark. Mass culture, he observes, "takes care of the need for liberation by satisfying the needs which make servitude palatable and perhaps even unnoticeable." It is in the interest of the culture industry that Kahn Academy, HitRecord, and other public minded offerings are niche, almost obscure. By disseminating corporate-sanctioned cultural material that caters to superficial aesthetic tastes, mass media keeps people satiated while molding imaginative faculties through, at its manipulative apex, containment narratives that serve the motives of the empowered. | | | | |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | Bread and Circuses.com | >
> | Commodifying Participation | | |
| |
<
< | This, of course, is assuming the best of YouTube content. More often than not, the content is entirely inane. As of this moment, the most viewed video of all time is Justin Bieber's "Baby." The first non-commercially sponsored video, coming in sixth place overall, is "Charlie bit my finger – again!" When Jerzy Kosinski coined the term videocy, he was speaking of a dystopian nightmare, of a society where people were chained to the exciting, yet trivial wiles of the Tube. Writing in 1975, he could hardly imagine how much the Internet and YouTube would serve to further aggravate this problem. In One Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse examines "advanced industrial societies" and the way in which ideology serves to wholly integrate and contain individuals as consumers. Mass culture, he observes, "takes care of the need for liberation by satisfying the needs which make servitude palatable and perhaps even unnoticeable." By disseminating corporate- sanctioned cultural material that caters to superficial aesthetic tastes, mass media keeps people satiated while molding imaginative faculties through, at its manipulative apex, containment narratives that serve the motives of the empowered. | | | | |
<
< | But all these thinkers
assumed the difficulty of competing directly with mass media; a
difficulty which is being destroyed at present and will in another
generation be only a distant memory.
Ancient Rome's elite believed that food and cheap entertainment were all that was necessary to keep the masses comfortable with the status quo and submissive to authority. Though YouTube fails to provide the Bread, they are among the primary Circus supplier. YouTube's "circuses" fall into two general categories: (1) home videos and (2) clips from popular movies/television/music video. Both fail to conjure anything but involuntary emotional impulses, usually disgust or amusement. However, while the amateur buffonery in the former give the viewer a sense of superiority and validation in her own lifestyle, the glossy images in the latter enthrall and summarily subjugate her using the commodity crown jewels. When they're done watching, three billion viewers are not thinking about their outrage at Wall Street; they're thinking about the jewelry Jennifer Lopez was wearing in her video.
This is one part of the
story. The other part is all the polemic, scientific, educational
and experimental activity occurring in the Web (which of course is
slightly larger than YouTube). HTML5 and its successors will make
video so integral to the Web that mere clipboards like YouTube will
barely matter, anyway. But even if we artificially freeze the
advance of technology in this frame to make your analysis, the
question of what we can learn from YouTube isn't very well explored
in an essay that tells us nothing about "the allegedly infringing"
and "the inane," but says nothing about the best that can be found,
which will most assuredly not be the most
popular. | >
> | Regardless of whether an individual is using YouTube to teach herself differential equations or to watch the latest Jennifer Lopez video, a startling truth remains constant: YouTube is a system that exists merely to quantify the viewer's viability as a consumer. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote presciently in The Culture Industry and Mass Deception (a chapter of Dialectic of Enlightenment) that, to the culture industry, people appear "as statistics on research organization charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique that is used for any type of propaganda." These research organization charts have only become more sophisticated. In selling viewers to advertisers as dehumanized demographic indices (e.g., "male audiences 18-34" to "viewers earning more than $100,000"), YouTube betrays the trust of viewers by monetizing their interiority and encouraging a herder-cattle style approach to the market for goods and services. Providing advertisers detailed statistical analysis of the effectiveness of their adds, including click through rates and conversion, facilitates the next stage in the evolution of commodification, where advertisements have fully ceased to be static broadcast and have become closer to cognizant beings. It seems unjust that individual interiority, the cost of such improved and progressive advertising, should be so readily paid to watch a free video.
| | | | |
<
< | Commodifying Participation | | |
| |
<
< | Beneath the veil of content, YouTube is a system that exists merely to quantify the viewer's viability as a consumer. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote presciently in The Culture Industry and Mass Deception (a chapter of Dialectic of Enlightenment) that, to the culture industry, people appear "as statistics on research organization charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique that is used for any type of propaganda." Since their book was published in 1947, these "research organization charts" have only become more sophisticated. YouTube displays viewers' demographic information for advertisers, including not only breakdowns of age, ethnicity, and household income, but also in terms of profiles ranging from "male audiences 18-34" to "viewers earning more than $100,000." By far the biggest advance that the internet brings is the ability to aggregate information from third party sites about a user's previous activities. By partnering with services like BlueKai, YouTube? is able to promise advertisers the ability to present potential consumers with a product that they, only moments ago while using an entirely different site, have demonstrated interest in. The most powerful promise of this hyper-advertising is its sheer adaptability. In providing advertisers with detailed statistical analysis of the effectiveness of their adds, including click through rates and conversion, YouTube facilitates the next stage in the evolution of commodification, where advertisements have fully ceased to be static broadcast and have become closer to cognizant beings. It seems unjust that individual interiority, the cost of such improved and progressive advertising, should be so readily paid. | >
> | [1] In the sense that early users of radio and cable were "amateur"
[2] Though we still do live in a world where patents on video codecs hinder the facility with which we can manipulate video content. | | | | |
>
> | | | | | |
<
< | -- StacyAdelman - 20 Oct 2011 | | |
|
|
|
StacyAdelmanFirstPaper 6 - 10 Nov 2011 - Main.StacyAdelman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| | | which will most assuredly not be the most
popular. | |
>
> | Commodifying Participation
Beneath the veil of content, YouTube is a system that exists merely to quantify the viewer's viability as a consumer. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote presciently in The Culture Industry and Mass Deception (a chapter of Dialectic of Enlightenment) that, to the culture industry, people appear "as statistics on research organization charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique that is used for any type of propaganda." Since their book was published in 1947, these "research organization charts" have only become more sophisticated. YouTube displays viewers' demographic information for advertisers, including not only breakdowns of age, ethnicity, and household income, but also in terms of profiles ranging from "male audiences 18-34" to "viewers earning more than $100,000." By far the biggest advance that the internet brings is the ability to aggregate information from third party sites about a user's previous activities. By partnering with services like BlueKai, YouTube? is able to promise advertisers the ability to present potential consumers with a product that they, only moments ago while using an entirely different site, have demonstrated interest in. The most powerful promise of this hyper-advertising is its sheer adaptability. In providing advertisers with detailed statistical analysis of the effectiveness of their adds, including click through rates and conversion, YouTube facilitates the next stage in the evolution of commodification, where advertisements have fully ceased to be static broadcast and have become closer to cognizant beings. It seems unjust that individual interiority, the cost of such improved and progressive advertising, should be so readily paid. | | | -- StacyAdelman - 20 Oct 2011 |
|
|
StacyAdelmanFirstPaper 5 - 10 Nov 2011 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | YouMarxism? : The Frankfurt School, the Internet, and the Shrinking Public Sphere
- Censorship Through Regulation
- Bread and Circuses.com
- Commodifying Participation
| >
> | | | | | |
>
> | YouMarxism: The Frankfurt School, the Internet, and the Shrinking Public Sphere | | | | |
<
< | YouMarxism? : The Frankfurt School, the Internet, and the Shrinking Public Sphere | >
> | Something is provided for all so that none may escape. —Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer | | | | |
<
< | Something is provided for all so that none may escape. - Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer | | | | |
<
< | In Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas conceived of a sphere in between the private space of the home and the public space occupied by the state where individuals could convene to critically reflect upon politics, culture, and identity. Though Habermas is speaking primarily about the public sphere of 18th and 19th centuries, his analysis and those of other Frankfurt School theorists, such as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are instrumental in understanding both the boundless promise and the tremendous waste of the Internet. YouTube? provides a simplistic microcosm to explore these ideas and enhance our understanding of otherwise invisible industrial control. | >
> | In Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas conceived of a sphere in between the private space of the home and the public space occupied by the state, where individuals could convene to critically reflect upon politics, culture, and identity. Though Habermas is speaking primarily about the public sphere of 18th and 19th centuries, his analysis and those of other Frankfurt School theorists, such as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are instrumental in understanding both the boundless promise and the tremendous waste of the Internet. YouTube provides a simplistic microcosm to explore these ideas and enhance our understanding of otherwise invisible industrial control. | | | Censorship Through Regulation
| |
<
< | Habermas lamented the decline of this so-called bourgeois “public sphere,” blaming, among many things, the concentration of economic power. The engorgement of economic power, he observes, in turn produces a call from both the public and the conglomerations themselves to regulate, thereby shrinking the public sphere. In the case of intellectual property, the call for stricter regulation of property rights of cultural products came as smaller production companies became consumed and transformed into larger ones. The primary mechanism is copyright laws, which allow conglomerations to supplement the tremendous control they have over the production of content with the subsequent control of content. Few other industries allow the producers to control consumers in this way, and in doing so, the culture industry dominates the public sphere. | >
> | Habermas lamented the decline of this so-called bourgeois "public sphere," blaming, among many things, the concentration of economic power. The engorgement of economic power, he observes, in turn produces a call from both the public and the conglomerations themselves to regulate, thereby shrinking the public sphere. In the case of intellectual property, the call for stricter regulation of property rights of cultural products came as smaller production companies became consumed and transformed into larger ones. The primary mechanism is copyright laws, which allow conglomerations to supplement the tremendous control they have over the production of content with the subsequent control of content. Few other industries allow the producers to control consumers in this way, and in doing so, the culture industry dominates the public sphere.
YouTube has become one of the predominant mediums for amateur expression. Its mission to "provide a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others" is severely hampered by its Terms and Conditions, which provide an easy procedure that allows copyright owners to remove users' videos and, in essence, shrink our public sphere. YouTomb, a research project by MIT Free Culture, continuously monitored the most popular videos on YouTube and tracked how many were taken down. In a two-month period from December 2008, YouTomb noted Warner Music Group alone had taken down over 4,500 videos. It is not only exact rips of industry products that face expulsion; remixing, mashups, slash, and tributes all technically fall under YouTube's terms and conditions. Users can fight to have their videos put back up by filing a counter-notice, but many have and will continue to give up. But why should they have to? The premise of the site is very much one of a Habermas-ian public sphere. It is through participation and engagement with culture that allow us as a society to progress. YouTube provides the mechanism to translate personal projects into public ones, a process, as Habermas explains, that is crucial to any public sphere. Intellectual property constrains the use of cultural material and therefore constrains the size and shape of the public sphere. Strangling content in this way results in less discussion and fewer opportunities to learn from fellow users. By appropriating YouTube, the culture industry has stolen space to experiment from the users, pushing them back into roles of passivity and ignorance to different perspectives. | | | | |
<
< | YouTube? has become one of the predominant mediums for amateur expression. Its mission to “provide a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others” is severely hampered by its Terms and Conditions, which provide an easy procedure that allows copyright owners to remove users’ videos and, in essence, shrink our public sphere. YouTomb? , a research project by MIT Free Culture, continuously monitored the most popular videos on YouTube? and tracked how many were taken down. In a two-month period (December 2008 – January 2009), YouTomb? noted Warner Music Group alone had taken down over 4,500 videos. It is not only exact rips of industry products that face expulsion; remixing, mashups, slash, and tributes all technically fall under YouTube? ’s terms and conditions. Users can fight to have their videos put back up by filing a counter-notice, but many have and will continue to give up. But why should they have to? The premise of the site is very much one of a Habermas-ian public sphere. It is through participation and engagement with culture that allow us as a society to progress. YouTube? provides the mechanism to translate personal projects into public ones, a process, as Habermas explains, that is crucial to any public sphere. Intellectual property constrains the use of cultural material and therefore constrains the size and shape of the public sphere. Strangling content in this way results in less discussion and fewer opportunities to learn from fellow users. By appropriating YouTube? , the culture industry has stolen space to experiment from the users, pushing them back into roles of passivity and ignorance to different perspectives. | >
> | Maybe. That depends on
the extent to which the remixing of others' content is necessary
rather than desirable for this experimentation. The point of view you are reusing here was developed in relation to the public spaces of 18th century Europe, as you note, interpreted through the lens of 20th century acquaintance with mass media. These are both valuable points of connection, but we don't live there anymore, and our understanding of the previous terms in the series should be shifting. Here, in particular, you should be asking rather how the new technologies interact with the existing array of copyright limitations (as they are thought of almost everywhere in the world except the US). You might also want to ask how much the copyright policymaking of a single entity, namely Google, now constitutes a supra-jurisdictional set of copyright realities, a subtly beautiful example of Lessig's "code becoming law" idea.
| | | Bread and Circuses.com
| |
<
< | This, of course, is assuming the best of YouTube? content. More often than not, the content is entirely inane. As of this moment, the most viewed video of all time is Justin Bieber’s “Baby.” The first non-commercially sponsored video, coming in sixth place overall, is “Charlie bit my finger – again!” When Jerzy Kosinski coined the term videocy, he was speaking of a dystopian nightmare, of a society where people were chained to the exciting, yet trivial wiles of the Tube. Writing in 1975, he could hardly imagine how much the Internet and YouTube? would serve to further aggravate this problem. In One Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse examines “advanced industrial societies” and the way in which ideology serves to wholly integrate and contain individuals as consumers. Mass culture, he observes, “takes care of the need for liberation by satisfying the needs which make servitude palatable and perhaps even unnoticeable.” By disseminating corporate- sanctioned cultural material that caters to superficial aesthetic tastes, mass media keeps people satiated while molding imaginative faculties through, at its manipulative apex, containment narratives that serve the motives of the empowered.
Ancient Rome’s elite believed that food and cheap entertainment were all that was necessary to keep the masses comfortable with the status quo and submissive to authority. Though YouTube? fails to provide the Bread, they are among the primary Circus supplier. YouTube? ’s “circuses” fall into two general categories: (1) home videos and (2) clips from popular movies/television/music video. Both fail to conjure anything but involuntary emotional impulses, usually disgust or amusement. However, while the amateur buffonery in the former give the viewer a sense of superiority and validation in her own lifestyle, the glossy images in the latter enthrall and summarily subjugate her using the commodity crown jewels. When they’re done watching, three billion viewers are not thinking about their outrage at Wall Street; they’re thinking about the jewelry Jennifer Lopez was wearing in her video. | >
> | This, of course, is assuming the best of YouTube content. More often than not, the content is entirely inane. As of this moment, the most viewed video of all time is Justin Bieber's "Baby." The first non-commercially sponsored video, coming in sixth place overall, is "Charlie bit my finger – again!" When Jerzy Kosinski coined the term videocy, he was speaking of a dystopian nightmare, of a society where people were chained to the exciting, yet trivial wiles of the Tube. Writing in 1975, he could hardly imagine how much the Internet and YouTube would serve to further aggravate this problem. In One Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse examines "advanced industrial societies" and the way in which ideology serves to wholly integrate and contain individuals as consumers. Mass culture, he observes, "takes care of the need for liberation by satisfying the needs which make servitude palatable and perhaps even unnoticeable." By disseminating corporate- sanctioned cultural material that caters to superficial aesthetic tastes, mass media keeps people satiated while molding imaginative faculties through, at its manipulative apex, containment narratives that serve the motives of the empowered. | | | | |
>
> | But all these thinkers
assumed the difficulty of competing directly with mass media; a
difficulty which is being destroyed at present and will in another
generation be only a distant memory.
Ancient Rome's elite believed that food and cheap entertainment were all that was necessary to keep the masses comfortable with the status quo and submissive to authority. Though YouTube fails to provide the Bread, they are among the primary Circus supplier. YouTube's "circuses" fall into two general categories: (1) home videos and (2) clips from popular movies/television/music video. Both fail to conjure anything but involuntary emotional impulses, usually disgust or amusement. However, while the amateur buffonery in the former give the viewer a sense of superiority and validation in her own lifestyle, the glossy images in the latter enthrall and summarily subjugate her using the commodity crown jewels. When they're done watching, three billion viewers are not thinking about their outrage at Wall Street; they're thinking about the jewelry Jennifer Lopez was wearing in her video.
This is one part of the
story. The other part is all the polemic, scientific, educational
and experimental activity occurring in the Web (which of course is
slightly larger than YouTube). HTML5 and its successors will make
video so integral to the Web that mere clipboards like YouTube will
barely matter, anyway. But even if we artificially freeze the
advance of technology in this frame to make your analysis, the
question of what we can learn from YouTube isn't very well explored
in an essay that tells us nothing about "the allegedly infringing"
and "the inane," but says nothing about the best that can be found,
which will most assuredly not be the most
popular. | | | -- StacyAdelman - 20 Oct 2011 |
|
|
StacyAdelmanFirstPaper 4 - 03 Nov 2011 - Main.StacyAdelman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
YouMarxism? : The Frankfurt School, the Internet, and the Shrinking Public Sphere
- Censorship Through Regulation
| | |
- Bread and Circuses.com
- Commodifying Participation
| |
>
> | | | | YouMarxism? : The Frankfurt School, the Internet, and the Shrinking Public Sphere | |
<
< | In Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas conceived of a sphere in between the private space of the home and the public space occupied by the state where individuals could convene to critically reflect upon politics, culture, and identity. Though Habermas is speaking primarily about the public sphere of 18th and 19th centuries, his analysis and those of other Frankfurt School theorists, such as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are instrumental in understanding both the boundless promise and the tremendous waste of the Internet. YouTube? provides a simplistic microcosm to explore these ideas and enhance our understanding of otherwise invisible industrial control. | >
> | Something is provided for all so that none may escape. - Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer
In Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas conceived of a sphere in between the private space of the home and the public space occupied by the state where individuals could convene to critically reflect upon politics, culture, and identity. Though Habermas is speaking primarily about the public sphere of 18th and 19th centuries, his analysis and those of other Frankfurt School theorists, such as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are instrumental in understanding both the boundless promise and the tremendous waste of the Internet. YouTube? provides a simplistic microcosm to explore these ideas and enhance our understanding of otherwise invisible industrial control. | | | Censorship Through Regulation
Habermas lamented the decline of this so-called bourgeois “public sphere,” blaming, among many things, the concentration of economic power. The engorgement of economic power, he observes, in turn produces a call from both the public and the conglomerations themselves to regulate, thereby shrinking the public sphere. In the case of intellectual property, the call for stricter regulation of property rights of cultural products came as smaller production companies became consumed and transformed into larger ones. The primary mechanism is copyright laws, which allow conglomerations to supplement the tremendous control they have over the production of content with the subsequent control of content. Few other industries allow the producers to control consumers in this way, and in doing so, the culture industry dominates the public sphere. | |
<
< | YouTube? has become one of the predominant mediums for amateur expression. Its mission to “provide a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others” is severely hampered by its Terms and Conditions, which provide an easy procedure that allows copyright owners to remove users’ videos and, in essence, shrink our public sphere. YouTomb? , a research project by MIT Free Culture, continuously monitored the most popular videos on YouTube? and tracked how many were taken down. In a two-month period (December 2008 – January 2009), YouTomb? noted Warner Music Group alone had taken down over 4,500 videos. It is not only exact rips of industry products that face expulsion; remixing, mashups, slash, and tributes all technically fall under YouTube? ’s terms and conditions. Users can fight to have their videos put back up by filing a counter-notice, but many have and will continue to give up. But why should they have to? The premise of the site is very much one of a Habermas-ian public sphere. It is through participation and engagement with culture that allow us as a society to progress. YouTube? provides the mechanism to translate personal projects into public ones, a process, as Habermas explains, that is crucial to any public sphere. Intellectual property constrains the use of cultural material and therefore constrains the size and shape of the public sphere. Strangling content in this way results in less discussion and fewer opportunities to learn from fellow users. By appropriating YouTube? , the culture industry has stolen space to experiment from the users, pushing them back into roles of passivity and ignorance to different perspectives. | >
> | YouTube? has become one of the predominant mediums for amateur expression. Its mission to “provide a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others” is severely hampered by its Terms and Conditions, which provide an easy procedure that allows copyright owners to remove users’ videos and, in essence, shrink our public sphere. YouTomb? , a research project by MIT Free Culture, continuously monitored the most popular videos on YouTube? and tracked how many were taken down. In a two-month period (December 2008 – January 2009), YouTomb? noted Warner Music Group alone had taken down over 4,500 videos. It is not only exact rips of industry products that face expulsion; remixing, mashups, slash, and tributes all technically fall under YouTube? ’s terms and conditions. Users can fight to have their videos put back up by filing a counter-notice, but many have and will continue to give up. But why should they have to? The premise of the site is very much one of a Habermas-ian public sphere. It is through participation and engagement with culture that allow us as a society to progress. YouTube? provides the mechanism to translate personal projects into public ones, a process, as Habermas explains, that is crucial to any public sphere. Intellectual property constrains the use of cultural material and therefore constrains the size and shape of the public sphere. Strangling content in this way results in less discussion and fewer opportunities to learn from fellow users. By appropriating YouTube? , the culture industry has stolen space to experiment from the users, pushing them back into roles of passivity and ignorance to different perspectives. | | | Bread and Circuses.com
| |
<
< | This, of course, is assuming the best of YouTube? content. More often than not, the content is entirely inane. As of this moment, the most viewed video of all time is Justin Bieber’s “Baby.” The first non-commercially sponsored video, coming in sixth place overall, is “Charlie bit my finger – again!” When Jerzy Kosinski coined the term “videocy,” he was speaking of a dystopian nightmare, of a society where people were chained to the exciting, yet trivial wiles of the Tube. Writing in 1975, he could hardly imagine how much the Internet and YouTube? would serve to further aggravate this problem. In One Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse examines “advanced industrial societies” and the way in which ideology serves to wholly integrate and contain individuals as consumers. Mass culture, he observes, “takes care of the need for liberation by satisfying the needs which make servitude palatable and perhaps even unnoticeable.” By disseminating corporate- sanctioned cultural material that caters to superficial aesthetic tastes, mass media keeps people satiated while molding imaginative faculties through, at its manipulative apex, containment narratives that serve the motives of the empowered. | >
> | This, of course, is assuming the best of YouTube? content. More often than not, the content is entirely inane. As of this moment, the most viewed video of all time is Justin Bieber’s “Baby.” The first non-commercially sponsored video, coming in sixth place overall, is “Charlie bit my finger – again!” When Jerzy Kosinski coined the term videocy, he was speaking of a dystopian nightmare, of a society where people were chained to the exciting, yet trivial wiles of the Tube. Writing in 1975, he could hardly imagine how much the Internet and YouTube? would serve to further aggravate this problem. In One Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse examines “advanced industrial societies” and the way in which ideology serves to wholly integrate and contain individuals as consumers. Mass culture, he observes, “takes care of the need for liberation by satisfying the needs which make servitude palatable and perhaps even unnoticeable.” By disseminating corporate- sanctioned cultural material that caters to superficial aesthetic tastes, mass media keeps people satiated while molding imaginative faculties through, at its manipulative apex, containment narratives that serve the motives of the empowered. | | | | |
<
< | Ancient Rome’s elite believed that food and cheap entertainment were all that was necessary to keep the masses comfortable with the status quo and submissive to authority. Though YouTube? fails to provide the Bread, they are among the primary Circus supplier. YouTube? ’s “circuses” fall into two general categories: (1) home videos and (2) clips from popular movies/television/music video. Both fail to conjure anything but involuntary emotional impulses, usually disgust or amusement. However, while the amateur buffonery in the former give the viewer a sense of superiority and validation in her own lifestyle, the glossy images in the latter enthrall and summarily subjugate her using the commodity crown jewels. When they’re done watching, three billion viewers are not thinking about their outrage at Wall Street; they’re thinking about the jewelry Jennifer Lopez was wearing in her video. | >
> | Ancient Rome’s elite believed that food and cheap entertainment were all that was necessary to keep the masses comfortable with the status quo and submissive to authority. Though YouTube? fails to provide the Bread, they are among the primary Circus supplier. YouTube? ’s “circuses” fall into two general categories: (1) home videos and (2) clips from popular movies/television/music video. Both fail to conjure anything but involuntary emotional impulses, usually disgust or amusement. However, while the amateur buffonery in the former give the viewer a sense of superiority and validation in her own lifestyle, the glossy images in the latter enthrall and summarily subjugate her using the commodity crown jewels. When they’re done watching, three billion viewers are not thinking about their outrage at Wall Street; they’re thinking about the jewelry Jennifer Lopez was wearing in her video. | | |
-- StacyAdelman - 20 Oct 2011 |
|
|
StacyAdelmanFirstPaper 3 - 03 Nov 2011 - Main.StacyAdelman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Frankfurt School and the Internet
- The Shrinking of the Public Sphere
- Censorship through regulation
- Bread, Circuses, and the New Yellow Journalism
| >
> | YouMarxism? : The Frankfurt School, the Internet, and the Shrinking Public Sphere
- Censorship Through Regulation
- Bread and Circuses.com
| | |
-
- Commodifying Participation
| |
<
< |
- The Public Pushes Back
- A Return to the Liberal Broadcasting Model
- Production as Guerilla Warfare
- The Future
| | | | |
<
< | The very beginning of my paper. I'm continuing to sort it out by the hour. | >
> | YouMarxism? : The Frankfurt School, the Internet, and the Shrinking Public Sphere | | | | |
<
< | Frankfurt School and the Internet | >
> | In Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas conceived of a sphere in between the private space of the home and the public space occupied by the state where individuals could convene to critically reflect upon politics, culture, and identity. Though Habermas is speaking primarily about the public sphere of 18th and 19th centuries, his analysis and those of other Frankfurt School theorists, such as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are instrumental in understanding both the boundless promise and the tremendous waste of the Internet. YouTube? provides a simplistic microcosm to explore these ideas and enhance our understanding of otherwise invisible industrial control. | | | | |
<
< | In Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas conceived of a sphere in between the private space of the home and the public space occupied by the state where individuals could convene to critically reflect upon politics, culture, and identity. Though Habermas is speaking primarily about the public sphere of 18th and 19th centuries, his analysis and those of other Frankfurt School theorists, such as Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are instrumental in understanding both the boundless promise and the tremendous waste of the Internet. YouTube? provides a simplistic, yet didactic microcosm.
The Shrinking of the Public Sphere | >
> | Censorship Through Regulation | | |
Habermas lamented the decline of this so-called bourgeois “public sphere,” blaming, among many things, the concentration of economic power. The engorgement of economic power, he observes, in turn produces a call from both the public and the conglomerations themselves to regulate, thereby shrinking the public sphere. In the case of intellectual property, the call for stricter regulation of property rights of cultural products came as smaller production companies became consumed and transformed into larger ones. The primary mechanism is copyright laws, which allow conglomerations to supplement the tremendous control they have over the production of content with the subsequent control of content. Few other industries allow the producers to control consumers in this way, and in doing so, the culture industry dominates the public sphere. | |
<
< | YouTube? has become one of the predominant mediums for amateur expression. Its mission to “provide a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others” is severely hampered by its Terms and Conditions, which provide an easy procedure that allows copyright owners to remove users’ videos and in essence shrink our public sphere. YouTomb? , a research project by MIT Free Culture, continuously monitored the most popular videos on YouTube? and tracked how many are taken down. In a two-month period (December 2008 – January 2009), YouTomb? noted Warner Music Group alone had taken down over 4,500 videos. It is not only exact rips of industry products that face expulsion; remixing, mashups, slash, and tributes all technically fall under YouTube? ’s terms and conditions. Users can fight to have their videos put back up by filing a counter-notice, but many have and will continue to give up. But why should they have to? The premise of the site is very much one of a Habermas-ian public sphere. It is through participation and engagement with culture that allow us as a society to progress. By appropriating YouTube? , the culture industry has stolen space to experiment from the users, pushing them back into roles of passivity and ignorance. | >
> | YouTube? has become one of the predominant mediums for amateur expression. Its mission to “provide a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others” is severely hampered by its Terms and Conditions, which provide an easy procedure that allows copyright owners to remove users’ videos and, in essence, shrink our public sphere. YouTomb? , a research project by MIT Free Culture, continuously monitored the most popular videos on YouTube? and tracked how many were taken down. In a two-month period (December 2008 – January 2009), YouTomb? noted Warner Music Group alone had taken down over 4,500 videos. It is not only exact rips of industry products that face expulsion; remixing, mashups, slash, and tributes all technically fall under YouTube? ’s terms and conditions. Users can fight to have their videos put back up by filing a counter-notice, but many have and will continue to give up. But why should they have to? The premise of the site is very much one of a Habermas-ian public sphere. It is through participation and engagement with culture that allow us as a society to progress. YouTube? provides the mechanism to translate personal projects into public ones, a process, as Habermas explains, that is crucial to any public sphere. Intellectual property constrains the use of cultural material and therefore constrains the size and shape of the public sphere. Strangling content in this way results in less discussion and fewer opportunities to learn from fellow users. By appropriating YouTube? , the culture industry has stolen space to experiment from the users, pushing them back into roles of passivity and ignorance to different perspectives.
Bread and Circuses.com
This, of course, is assuming the best of YouTube? content. More often than not, the content is entirely inane. As of this moment, the most viewed video of all time is Justin Bieber’s “Baby.” The first non-commercially sponsored video, coming in sixth place overall, is “Charlie bit my finger – again!” When Jerzy Kosinski coined the term “videocy,” he was speaking of a dystopian nightmare, of a society where people were chained to the exciting, yet trivial wiles of the Tube. Writing in 1975, he could hardly imagine how much the Internet and YouTube? would serve to further aggravate this problem. In One Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse examines “advanced industrial societies” and the way in which ideology serves to wholly integrate and contain individuals as consumers. Mass culture, he observes, “takes care of the need for liberation by satisfying the needs which make servitude palatable and perhaps even unnoticeable.” By disseminating corporate- sanctioned cultural material that caters to superficial aesthetic tastes, mass media keeps people satiated while molding imaginative faculties through, at its manipulative apex, containment narratives that serve the motives of the empowered.
Ancient Rome’s elite believed that food and cheap entertainment were all that was necessary to keep the masses comfortable with the status quo and submissive to authority. Though YouTube? fails to provide the Bread, they are among the primary Circus supplier. YouTube? ’s “circuses” fall into two general categories: (1) home videos and (2) clips from popular movies/television/music video. Both fail to conjure anything but involuntary emotional impulses, usually disgust or amusement. However, while the amateur buffonery in the former give the viewer a sense of superiority and validation in her own lifestyle, the glossy images in the latter enthrall and summarily subjugate her using the commodity crown jewels. When they’re done watching, three billion viewers are not thinking about their outrage at Wall Street; they’re thinking about the jewelry Jennifer Lopez was wearing in her video. | | |
-- StacyAdelman - 20 Oct 2011 |
|
|
StacyAdelmanFirstPaper 2 - 27 Oct 2011 - Main.StacyAdelman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Frankfurt School and the Internet
- The Shrinking of the Public Sphere
| |
<
< |
-
- Bread, Circuses, and the New Yellow Journalism
| | |
-
- Censorship through regulation
| |
>
> |
-
- Bread, Circuses, and the New Yellow Journalism
| | |
-
- Commodifying Participation
- The Public Pushes Back
- A Return to the Liberal Broadcasting Model
| | | The Shrinking of the Public Sphere
| |
<
< | Habermas lamented the decline of this so-called bourgeois “public sphere,” blaming, among many things, the concentration of economic power. The engorgement of economic power, he observes, in turn produces a call from both the public and the conglomerations themselves to regulate, thereby shrinking the public sphere. In the case of intellectual property, the call for stricter regulation of property rights in cultural products came as smaller production companies became consumed and transformed into larger ones. | >
> | Habermas lamented the decline of this so-called bourgeois “public sphere,” blaming, among many things, the concentration of economic power. The engorgement of economic power, he observes, in turn produces a call from both the public and the conglomerations themselves to regulate, thereby shrinking the public sphere. In the case of intellectual property, the call for stricter regulation of property rights of cultural products came as smaller production companies became consumed and transformed into larger ones. The primary mechanism is copyright laws, which allow conglomerations to supplement the tremendous control they have over the production of content with the subsequent control of content. Few other industries allow the producers to control consumers in this way, and in doing so, the culture industry dominates the public sphere.
YouTube? has become one of the predominant mediums for amateur expression. Its mission to “provide a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others” is severely hampered by its Terms and Conditions, which provide an easy procedure that allows copyright owners to remove users’ videos and in essence shrink our public sphere. YouTomb? , a research project by MIT Free Culture, continuously monitored the most popular videos on YouTube? and tracked how many are taken down. In a two-month period (December 2008 – January 2009), YouTomb? noted Warner Music Group alone had taken down over 4,500 videos. It is not only exact rips of industry products that face expulsion; remixing, mashups, slash, and tributes all technically fall under YouTube? ’s terms and conditions. Users can fight to have their videos put back up by filing a counter-notice, but many have and will continue to give up. But why should they have to? The premise of the site is very much one of a Habermas-ian public sphere. It is through participation and engagement with culture that allow us as a society to progress. By appropriating YouTube? , the culture industry has stolen space to experiment from the users, pushing them back into roles of passivity and ignorance. | | | -- StacyAdelman - 20 Oct 2011 |
|
|
StacyAdelmanFirstPaper 1 - 20 Oct 2011 - Main.StacyAdelman
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Frankfurt School and the Internet
- The Shrinking of the Public Sphere
- Bread, Circuses, and the New Yellow Journalism
- Censorship through regulation
- Commodifying Participation
- The Public Pushes Back
- A Return to the Liberal Broadcasting Model
- Production as Guerilla Warfare
- The Future
The very beginning of my paper. I'm continuing to sort it out by the hour.
Frankfurt School and the Internet
In Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas conceived of a sphere in between the private space of the home and the public space occupied by the state where individuals could convene to critically reflect upon politics, culture, and identity. Though Habermas is speaking primarily about the public sphere of 18th and 19th centuries, his analysis and those of other Frankfurt School theorists, such as Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are instrumental in understanding both the boundless promise and the tremendous waste of the Internet. YouTube? provides a simplistic, yet didactic microcosm.
The Shrinking of the Public Sphere
Habermas lamented the decline of this so-called bourgeois “public sphere,” blaming, among many things, the concentration of economic power. The engorgement of economic power, he observes, in turn produces a call from both the public and the conglomerations themselves to regulate, thereby shrinking the public sphere. In the case of intellectual property, the call for stricter regulation of property rights in cultural products came as smaller production companies became consumed and transformed into larger ones.
-- StacyAdelman - 20 Oct 2011
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|