The Web 3, where theory meets practice

The propaganda of social networks

Amit Louis — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:46:02 +0000

"What!?! you're not on facebook ?!?" Why is that question so surprising? Whenever I encounter someone who doesn't have a profile on facebook I find myself wondering why. It seems to be such a trivial question these days. Where did it come from? What attracts and keeps people connected to the social network? What is the motivation of people refusing to join? The impact of social networks on everything from social, political to economic spheres is undeniable; we as users and active participants in this monumental experience are all too busy marveling at its beauty and functionality that it becomes easy to let our guards down and forget to examine the personal and social effects of this technological and social phenomena. Even more importantly, how did it become the status quo. The numbers are staggering, more and more people decide to join for a multitude of reasons. In 1965 Jacques Ellul published his brilliant book, simply titled, "Propaganda". The introduction to the book, written by Konrad Kellen, gives the readers a glimpse of the main arguments posed by Ellul. One central thesis is that propaganda, is a social phenomena that cannot survive nor exist without the technological society and vice versa. In other words, Ellul claims that propaganda as a social phenomenon, is a Siamese twin of the technological society. It is only by the effects of this propaganda can the technological society exist and flourish. The supreme law of propaganda, to Ellul, is its effectiveness. Propaganda must be effective, if it is not, it is not propaganda. watching people flock together to the social network, its popularity and ultimate grasp on our daily lives, seems to be like the result of a very effective propaganda. There are many definitions of the word "Propaganda", researchers, philosophers and many others each tried to come up with the ultimate definition. Majority of them seem to agree that it constitute the use of deliberate actions aimed at influencing audiences to change/maintain opinions and/or actions by use of psychological means. This makes one wonder of the hypnotizing and extraordinary grasp that social networks have on our lives. Exploring the origins of the social networks and network society, many researchers including but not limited to: Manuel Castells, Scott Lash, Danah M Boyd, Nicole B Ellison and many others paint a magnificent picture of the factors that brought about this phenomena into existence. Today, many researchers, professionals and advocates hale and marvel at these great social phenomena that were able to flourish thanks to advancements in technology. Looking at the social network from a philosophical point of view, it may be seen as "god's gift" to democracy and freedom of expression. We are led to believe that the social network works for us. On the surface it may appear so: citizens have brought down regimes, activists have managed to take on multi-million dollar co-operations, families re-united, relationships are formed each and every day, and so on. The list of benefits is as endless as the network itself. On the opposite side of the coin, it is no surprise that each user is also working for the network. An effective propaganda is one that leads people for actions and make them think that it is for their own good, to be part of something greater than one self. The social network provides exactly that. A chance for the individual to feel part of something, to belong, while the propagandist is capitalizing on his success. Do we need this propaganda to flourish? Do we require this propaganda to excel and develop further? For Ellul the answer is simple. Yes. "In my opnion, necessity never establishes legitimacy; the world of necessity is a world of weakness, a world that denies man" Jacques Ellul (1962)

IBM 5 + 5

David Hewitt — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:19:35 +0000

Recently in the news India has announced that it will be using unique biometric identifiers (B.I.) for all of its 1.3 billion people.It is called the Unique Identification Authority. The proposed B.I. will consist of fingerprint scans for all ten fingers, iris scans for both eyes, and a picture of the face. Other types of B.I. available are voice pattern recognition, gait pattern recognition, hand geometry, palm vein authentication, and signature. Biometrics are unique for every single person born, therefore eliminating risks of false copying, forgery and fraud. Additionally, these identifiers can never be lost or stolen. However, should we be concerned about the government's storage of these unique personal identifiers? What implications may this have on our privacy and the government's power to intervene in our private lifes? Around 440 million people in India live below poverty levels, surviving on social services and infrastructure. However, the vast majority of that 440 million people does not have ID's or bank accounts. Under the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), these B.I.'s will serve as signatures and ID cards. Some advocates concerned about privacy issues have however questioned whether this will lead to a Big Brother/Brave New World Control Grid, where the ubiquitous State controls, surveills, and monitors every facet of a person's existence. Coincidentally, IBM has released a new study revealing that the future of humanity is 5 in 5; passwords will become extinct (through B.I.'s), mind reading and mind/machine linkup will no longer be science fiction, and the "digital divide" (the gap between information-have's and have-not's) will cease to exist, among other things. There are societal trends analyses that indicate that within the next five years 5.6 billion mobile devices will be sold to a global population of 7 billion people. This means that 80% of the global population will have access to the World Wide Web, Internet Semantic Web, and the Web 3.0. The technology of mind-reading machines is bio-informatics, and the technology already exists, albeit at somewhat of a rudimentary stage. The human brain operates on electrochemical signals, or electromagnetic frequencies. Thus it is possible to link computers to those electromagnetic signals and through sophisticated processes provide a direct mind-machine-computer link. Many science fiction movies and books have been written over the years exploring what the outcome of this mind-machine interface will mean for the human race. Will we become like the CY-BORGS of Star Trek fame? Will our humanity be erased, and will something new and alien emerge in our place? These are real issues that need to be addressed, for the technology is here and now. There is an interesting video out there in cyberspace entitled "Data Mining the Soul"; it is a very short, but very powerful visualization of an abstract concept of how much of our digital profile is being "mined" by various entities. In fact, some libertarians are decrying the India move to biometrically ID all their citizens as the proverbial "selling your soul to the Devil" for a Biblical "mess of pottage". Naturally that leads into the Christian concept of the infamous "Mark of the Beast" and 666 as portrayed in the Christian bible. Will the Universal Biometric System in fact be a fulfillment of Christian theology? Are governments and corporations our saviors, with only our best altruistic interests in mind? Or are there more nefarious and 'diabolical' motivations involved? The entire subject can be investigated in the area of "ponerology", or the nature of political evil. Some have portrayed this as "Snakes in Suits", a.k.a. psychopaths. Humanity is indeed at a crossroads, and 2012 may indeed prove to be that intersection of technology and spirituality; for good or for evil.

Branding – now and then

Amit Louis — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:37:52 +0000

In a media saturated environment, branding is a challenge. Some messages are more visible than others and the general public is in a constant mode of reception. Consumption is the goal. Branding in this crowded arena can be a challenging task. A challenge to get specific messages across while struggling to capture the attention of audiences who are bombarded with thousands of different messages from different mediums on a daily basis. With that in mind, it is important to remember that the end goal of every branding campaign is the ultimate increase in sales. This is the heart and essence of every capitalistic organization whose purpose is to increase profits. Branding came along way since the days of burning identifying marks on cattle or criminals. Today the term has evolved to mean, in a very general sense, the attachment of emotional characteristics to a product, a person, or anything that is marketable. In fact, you can brand practically anything; from the smallest of things, to the largest of things, from innate objects, to people, groups or even entire nations and countries. Just think of what emotions come to mind when you think of Italy for example, or France, George Bush, facebook, twitter or anything else you would like. A good branding campaign is one whose end result is the triggering of a specified feeling or emotion in a target audience. Branding is not only communicating messages to audiences it is much more than that. Branding is turning a rational purchasing decision into an emotional decision. Early theories of communication have suggested that audiences are passive consumers. Such theories include the "hyperdermic needle", "two step flow" and others. These theories did not view audiences as active participants in the flow of messages from producers to consumers. Between the 1940's to the 1960's during the age of Fordism (Systems of mass production, standardization and consumption) segmentation of consumers was not something marketers took into consideration (barring the distinction between women and men). Segments just did not exist. Marketers and advertisers did not see any difference between women, or between men. In the eve of mass production everything looked like everything else. Consumers were viewed as passive, just taking in whatever was placed in front of them. With the rise of segmented marketing, niche media channels, social networks and other forms of new media, in the mid to late 20th century, branding has become more challenging. More so in the age of informationalism. Consumers are said to be more active, aware, smart, segmented. We are still living in a mass production and mass consumption society, the challenge is to make the same product different. Not only making the same product appear different, but also adhere to the needs and wants of specific target audiences. it's clear that marketing and branding campaigns have progressed through the years. It has been integrated into the daily lives of consumers. There are much more options and choices available to us today, it's enough just to look at the selection of drinking water or pop drinks that are available at your local store. Each brand is promising a different experience in taste, feeling, or even life changing events. schweppes is telling tis consumer to "drink different" for example, or Coca Cola in recent campaigns are selling consumers happiness and freedom with each bottle sold. Both are pop drinks, both promising a completely different experience to a completely different target audience. So what has changed from the past? Branding, in essence, still remained the same, all you need to look at are the different advertisements from the 40's to the 60's and compare them to advertisements from the 90's and oo's, and see what advertisers are promising consumers. What has changed is the size and number of markets. We, as the consumers of the 21st century, are much more segmented. Advertisers have to decide to which segment they are catering, what emotions to trigger in each segment and how to create a uniform language between the products they are advertising under the same brand. In his 2009 book Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are Rob Walker is arguing that although we think of ourselves as "smart consumers" we are still very much affected by branding. Advertisers and marketers are hard at work making fantasy appear as reality, substituting reason with emotions and it seems to be working. Have we, as consumers, changed since the 1940's and 50's? Maybe we have been segmented but it is clear that we are still affected by the fantasy world created by advertisers and marketers.

SOPA: Information Controlled Society?

David Hewitt — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:24:22 +0000

The origins of what we know today as "the Internet" are still hotly debated. When computers first became operational around the 1950's, they were connected to terminals in a form of point-to-point communication. Eventually computer networks became interconnected, and thus terminal-to-terminal connections were created. One theory about the origins of the Internet is that research scientists needed a faster way to share their notes, research results, and general conferencing and communication. Sending memos through regular post and communication through telephone calls was far too slow and cumbersome, and thus the Internet was born. There is little doubt that today, in 2012, the world wide web of electronic interconnectivity has had profound changes and impacts on all dimensions of our lives. One wonders if the social engineers deep in some lab ever imagined or predicted just how far-reaching the societal impacts of the Internet would become. The Internet has created a worldwide communications grid, resulting in the free flow of information, outside government censorship and corporate control. And this is exactly what concerns some governments. China is a famous example. In an attempt to control public media the Chinese government has completely blocked websites including Facebook and YouTube and continues to shutdown weblogs on a daily basis. Other governments may have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the extent of free-flowing information due to the rise of websites such as WikiLeaks, distributing highly confidential government documents and information. Many governments have swiftly created institutes to monitor online activity, and one of those institutions is the American 'Social Network/Communication Capibility' under the US Homeland Security Department. The department routinely tracks and monitors websites such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as sensitive and 'risky' websites with content on inter alia the bird flu and terrorism in order to, as it argues, maintain 'situational awareness'. Legitimate or not, the monitoring does create a sense of Big Brother watching all of us.

Then there is the much debated Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA (H.R. 3261), which, if passed by the US Congress, will give corporations extensive power to censor, block and sue websites that post copyright infringing content. Many fear that this will severely limit freedom of speech on the Internet and will block many free-flow information websites. Websites such as Facebook and YouTube, for example, could be at risk of lawsuits or even a shutdown, as they would become liable for any infringing content posted by any of their users. And let's face it: haven't we all once posted a link to our favorite song or video? The argument continues. If other countries were to pass similar laws, then every country would have its own individual, censored Internet and what was once a global flow of information, entertainment and communication may be at risk of a cold, anti-piracy shutdown led by corporations. These corporations, very much the promoters of SOPA, argue that they merely aim to protect their products and profitability, and wish to copyright laws that are currently subject to infringements by sites such as PirateBay. But will extensive censorship really change todays reality? The reality of lines of cheap $4.95 DVD's infinitely on sale at Walmart? Will people, without access to streaming content, return to the shops to buy the very cd's and dvd's that many have already disposed of? Or is perhaps time for these industries to innovate, as they already have done to a considerable extent? The year 2012 might be a milestone year and, if the US legislator is to have its way, may be the year in which the Internet ceases to be a free and open forum for all. It may turn into a censored, commercial marketplace, where little is available for free and thoughts are thoroughly screened.

The Digital Network – video

tw3 — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:20:18 +0000

Network from Michael Rigley on Vimeo. Information technology has become a ubiquitous presence. By visualizing the processes that underlie our interactions with this technology we can trace what happens to the information we feed into the network. BFA Thesis CCA Graphic Design