|
DavidKellamFirstEssay 2 - 01 Jun 2017 - Main.DavidKellam
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="DavidKellam" |
|---|
| |
>
> | Return to the West | | | | |
>
> | -- By DavidKellam - 31 May 2017
| | | | |
>
> | Our modern acceptance of online surveillance may irreversibly displace any feeling of entitlement that humankind feels towards privacy. There is little time left before the notion of autonomy is substantially forgotten, but online anonymity may suppress the movement that seeks to convert our personal data into a market commodity. | | | | |
>
> | The Human Subconscious with an Online Stage | | | | |
<
< | -- DavidKellam - 11 Mar 2017 | >
> | The true wild west of the internet, upon which a cult generation of tech-obsessed young Americans constructed the future of humankind, is over. It was overrun by the online gold rush and replaced with corporate and government invigilators that trade in our personal information. Any awareness that we may have of this change to a more sinister online environment has been obscured by the convenience of programs that streamline our access to information. It is in the carefully crafted language of user contracts that we have unknowingly relinquished our privacy rights, all in the shadow of federal regulatory support. What we have overlooked is the extent to which the transparency of our online identities may be modifying our cognitive relationship to the internet in the form of a modern, online Hawthorne Effect. | | | | |
<
< | The true wild west of the internet, upon which a cult generation of tech-obsessed young Americans constructed the future of humankind, is over. It was overrun by the online gold rush and replaced with corporate and government invigilators that have bred a generation indifferent to the notions of personal freedom and privacy. | >
> | For nearly a century, behavioral modification resulting from observation has been a topic of social psychological debate. The Hawthorne Effect has become the colloquial caption of this phenomenon. Initially centered on industrial workplace productivity, and later on human behavior during research, Hawthorne studies have evolved in purpose and meaning. The theme of the Hawthorne studies, however, has remained; the human subconscious can cause alteration of conscious behavior in response to an awareness of surveillance. The modern psychological explanation of the Hawthorne Effect’s mechanism is that awareness of observation engenders beliefs about spectator expectations. Subconscious conformity and social considerations then cause behavioral modification in line with these expectations. | | | | |
<
< | What we have overlooked is the extent to which a newfound transparency of our internet identities has affected how we browse the infobahn, and thereby the way that we select and perceive its content. Being observed affects human work product in dynamic ways, namely, by forcing conscious and subconscious conformity to the perceived ideas of those doing the observing. This is known as the Hawthorne Effect. We are aware that our online identity is established and transparent, and have submitted to the idea of an internet auditor watching how we access information. The result is the type of behavior modification that has been observed in countless Hawthorne studies. | >
> | Viewing online behavior in a Hawthorne context may provide a platform upon which some of the atmospherics of the conversation can be better evaluated, and the findings of such research will likely provide reciprocal insight on the dangers of online surveillance. Freud believed that that civilization provides protection by imposing heavy dictates which subconsciously “obtain mastery over the individual’s dangerous desire[s]” by “setting up an agency within him to watch over it.” Today, this “mastery” over our free will is manifest in a modern, online Hawthorne Effect. | | | | |
<
< | Because internet monitoring comes in a variety of forms, users do not always associate their perceived observer with a certain ideology, and therefore it is likely that our behavior, though undeniably altered, is done so in a chaotic way. However, when this random behavioral influence transforms into a guided one, humanity as we know it will cease to exist. The collective consciousness that we are seeing emerge from the online echochamber will become our hivemind, and its queen, an abstract being alive in the underground cabling of Google Fiber. | >
> | The Momentum of Conformity | | | | |
<
< | As the role of the internet continues to grow in influence, it will become more clear what this “queen” believes. Her beliefs will continue to spread on social media; they will be fashionable; otherwise aimless voters will conform their beliefs; and politicians will respond, themselves invariably enamored by the convenience of gleaning social knowledge directly from their newsfeed. In other words, when social media makes the collective opinion more visible, we will know, generally, the beliefs of the entity that is monitoring our behavior. Once we know these beliefs, the Hawthorne Effect will become specific and our online pursuit of knowledge will be done in the shadow of what we believe our omniscient queen requires. | >
> | Most internet users can relate to a feeling of uncertainty when submitting a response to a controversial political thread or when reading news from a source that is at stark odds with their government’s narrative. In both cases, several parties may have access to the resulting data: the ISP, the controlling corporation, the external parties to whom this information is sold, and the government actors with access to their databases. | | | | |
<
< | The instant gratification of getting immediate information is unlikely to disappear. It is equally unlikely that the average person ever realizes that this information is authored by those who are most inclined to indulge in conformity to online collective consciousness. However, anonymity will help to remove the Hawthorne Effect as it relates to the way we treat this information. When we are anonymous, we are more comfortable seeking out and transmitting alternative information that we believe might conflict with the fashionable ideology of our would-be online spectators and we can develop and share opinions without the conscious or subconscious pressure of conformity. Without this pressure, we can cultivate our beliefs with far less outside influence, which leaves room for personal experiences to shape the way in which we view the world. We could once again relate to society as we have for thousands of years: through independent thought. | >
> | The longer an internet user is aware of surveillance, the more that their online behavior may change to fit the perceived expectations of the entities from which the content is sourced. With an increase in users modifying their behavior, there will be an accompanying increase in content that supports the respective regulatory body, and less incentive for a user to venture outside of the online consensus to find information. Eventually, this behavioral modification recruits others through an abundance of web content created by conforming users afraid to deviate from the gospel of “acceptable” content. This creates a realm of self-sustaining group sensibilities often referred to as the “echochamber.” | | | | |
<
< | Whether it be from observation by the prevailing government ideology or from observation by corporations upon whom we project our perception of the collective ideology, we must be free from oversight. The unfortunate reality is that we have about thirty years to accomplish this because newer generations have no frame of reference with which to understand the value of composing a worldview free of the effects of observation. Any movement to combat the monitorization of the internet must necessarily consist of people who have lived in a time of online anonymity, or at least perceived online anonymity, yet the only people alive who meet these standards are those who have been computer-conscious between the early days of Dennis Ritchie and the 2000s. That is not to say that anonymity was truly present during the entirety of this period, but the perception of anonymity was more lucid. This is in part due to computer-knowledgeable Americans who were aware of the early limitations of data storage and management, and in part because technology did not dominate such a tremendous part of daily life until the entrepreneurial app rush began in the mid-2000s. | >
> | As powerful online actors realize their influence, it is possible that they make their beliefs more evident, thus controlling the direction of conformity that results from our subconscious desire to submit to their expectations. People will be more reluctant to explore opposing viewpoints; the acceptable narrative will spread further on social media; otherwise aimless voters will conform their beliefs; and politicians will respond, themselves invariably enamored by the convenience of gleaning social knowledge directly from their newsfeed. The true danger, though, is the possibility that a type of hivemind emerges from the echochamber, and its queen, an abstract being alive in the underground cabling of Google Fiber. | | | | |
<
< | Today, apps monitor where we are, who we are with, and even our heartrate. We allow these apps to store the information and often publish it online. The collective consciousness of information transmission will soon become the collective consciousness of behavior, and the next generation to reach adulthood will have never lived without it. The convergence of new technology with the internet has made this more apparent, but for many who can still remember and appreciate a life with anonymity, it is too late in their careers to devise a movement capable of combating the momentum of this assault on personal autonomy. There is hope, however. The millennials who latched onto the internet in the 90s and early 2000s are beginning their careers. They can still relate to a life without a smart-phone informant in their pocket, and thus undoubtedly the last generation that remembers a state of being to which we can return. Furthermore, they are the last generation with members who learned to understand computers as they were before Apple streamlined operating systems to the point that efficient use was possible with virtually no understanding of software. | >
> | Anonymity as a Possible Solution
Today, runners upload their daily steps to an online database; navigation apps store where we go, when, and who we are with; roving bugs which can remotely activate phone microphones have been judicially approved. If this influence continues to grow, the collective consciousness of information transmission might soon become the collective consciousness of behavior, and the next generation to reach adulthood will have never lived without it.
If a Hawthorne Effect truly is present in our online interactions, then a possible restraint on the inevitable growth of technological influence is anonymity. When we are anonymous, we are more comfortable obtaining alternative information and can share opinions without the conscious or subconscious pressure of conformity to our would-be spectators. Without this pressure, we can cultivate our beliefs with far less outside influence, leaving room for personal experiences to shape the way that we relate to the world.
There are several possible routes to online anonymity: implementation of encrypted nodes, broader participation in anonymizing networks, and judicial limitations on corporate data sharing and government access to name a few. However, any movement to encourage such change must necessarily consist of people who have lived in a time of perceived online anonymity and remember a state of privacy to which we could return.
Conclusion
The “wild west” of the internet did not end with the advent of telephones and automobiles, as did its historical namesake, but instead through a capitalist landgrab of ideas in which corporations saturated the consumer market with apps that have dulled our sensitivity to privacy violations and limited our ability to explore ideas free from surveillance. There are few of us left capable of fighting the resulting inertia of online groupthink that we and our children face, and unless we act within the window of our lifetime, the fabric of the human experience as we have always known it will become unsalvageable. | | | | |
<
< | The “wild west” of the internet did not end with the advent of telephones and automobiles, as did its historical namesake, but instead through a capitalist landgrab of ideas. In pursuit of the available profit from the emerging frontier of internet, corporations saturated the consumer market with apps that have dulled our sensitivity to privacy violations. There are few of us left with the experience and technical understanding necessary to fight the devastating inertia of online groupthink that we and our children face, and unless we act within the window of our lifetime, the fabric of the human experience as we have always known it will become unsalvageable. | | | |
|
|
DavidKellamFirstEssay 1 - 11 Mar 2017 - Main.DavidKellam
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="DavidKellam" |
|---|
-- DavidKellam - 11 Mar 2017
The true wild west of the internet, upon which a cult generation of tech-obsessed young Americans constructed the future of humankind, is over. It was overrun by the online gold rush and replaced with corporate and government invigilators that have bred a generation indifferent to the notions of personal freedom and privacy.
What we have overlooked is the extent to which a newfound transparency of our internet identities has affected how we browse the infobahn, and thereby the way that we select and perceive its content. Being observed affects human work product in dynamic ways, namely, by forcing conscious and subconscious conformity to the perceived ideas of those doing the observing. This is known as the Hawthorne Effect. We are aware that our online identity is established and transparent, and have submitted to the idea of an internet auditor watching how we access information. The result is the type of behavior modification that has been observed in countless Hawthorne studies.
Because internet monitoring comes in a variety of forms, users do not always associate their perceived observer with a certain ideology, and therefore it is likely that our behavior, though undeniably altered, is done so in a chaotic way. However, when this random behavioral influence transforms into a guided one, humanity as we know it will cease to exist. The collective consciousness that we are seeing emerge from the online echochamber will become our hivemind, and its queen, an abstract being alive in the underground cabling of Google Fiber.
As the role of the internet continues to grow in influence, it will become more clear what this “queen” believes. Her beliefs will continue to spread on social media; they will be fashionable; otherwise aimless voters will conform their beliefs; and politicians will respond, themselves invariably enamored by the convenience of gleaning social knowledge directly from their newsfeed. In other words, when social media makes the collective opinion more visible, we will know, generally, the beliefs of the entity that is monitoring our behavior. Once we know these beliefs, the Hawthorne Effect will become specific and our online pursuit of knowledge will be done in the shadow of what we believe our omniscient queen requires.
The instant gratification of getting immediate information is unlikely to disappear. It is equally unlikely that the average person ever realizes that this information is authored by those who are most inclined to indulge in conformity to online collective consciousness. However, anonymity will help to remove the Hawthorne Effect as it relates to the way we treat this information. When we are anonymous, we are more comfortable seeking out and transmitting alternative information that we believe might conflict with the fashionable ideology of our would-be online spectators and we can develop and share opinions without the conscious or subconscious pressure of conformity. Without this pressure, we can cultivate our beliefs with far less outside influence, which leaves room for personal experiences to shape the way in which we view the world. We could once again relate to society as we have for thousands of years: through independent thought.
Whether it be from observation by the prevailing government ideology or from observation by corporations upon whom we project our perception of the collective ideology, we must be free from oversight. The unfortunate reality is that we have about thirty years to accomplish this because newer generations have no frame of reference with which to understand the value of composing a worldview free of the effects of observation. Any movement to combat the monitorization of the internet must necessarily consist of people who have lived in a time of online anonymity, or at least perceived online anonymity, yet the only people alive who meet these standards are those who have been computer-conscious between the early days of Dennis Ritchie and the 2000s. That is not to say that anonymity was truly present during the entirety of this period, but the perception of anonymity was more lucid. This is in part due to computer-knowledgeable Americans who were aware of the early limitations of data storage and management, and in part because technology did not dominate such a tremendous part of daily life until the entrepreneurial app rush began in the mid-2000s.
Today, apps monitor where we are, who we are with, and even our heartrate. We allow these apps to store the information and often publish it online. The collective consciousness of information transmission will soon become the collective consciousness of behavior, and the next generation to reach adulthood will have never lived without it. The convergence of new technology with the internet has made this more apparent, but for many who can still remember and appreciate a life with anonymity, it is too late in their careers to devise a movement capable of combating the momentum of this assault on personal autonomy. There is hope, however. The millennials who latched onto the internet in the 90s and early 2000s are beginning their careers. They can still relate to a life without a smart-phone informant in their pocket, and thus undoubtedly the last generation that remembers a state of being to which we can return. Furthermore, they are the last generation with members who learned to understand computers as they were before Apple streamlined operating systems to the point that efficient use was possible with virtually no understanding of software.
The “wild west” of the internet did not end with the advent of telephones and automobiles, as did its historical namesake, but instead through a capitalist landgrab of ideas. In pursuit of the available profit from the emerging frontier of internet, corporations saturated the consumer market with apps that have dulled our sensitivity to privacy violations. There are few of us left with the experience and technical understanding necessary to fight the devastating inertia of online groupthink that we and our children face, and unless we act within the window of our lifetime, the fabric of the human experience as we have always known it will become unsalvageable.
|
|
|