I have been reading the Internet posts with interest. I would like to hear
(true confessions time) from people on this list who make uses of the
internet other than informational.
I have been spending lots of time in chat rooms of late, kind of trying to
work out an identity somewhere in between lurker/researcher and cyber-gal
hav'n fun on-line. I am trying to figure out where are the spaces on-line
where some of the transformative and i suppose utopic notions of what can
happen to subjectivity are made possible by ore or less synchronous chat.
I am very interested in academics emphasis on informational uses of the net,
which more or less mimic RL (real life) uses of text, whereas it seems to me
that chat rooms create a kind of space the likes of which one could not find
in RL.
The motivation for people to live in these VR spaces intrigues me - so far,
it would seem to have elements of titillation, pleasure, communication, and
experiments in morphing identities.
So, who haunts the chats or MOOs etc... and what about those spaces as weird
kinds of communities that are probably really important?
M
-- Dr. Mary Bryson, Associate Professor, Education, UBC GenTech Project http://www.shecan.com Curriculum Vitae http://www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/cv.htmlThe child has no powers of reflection - no second-order thoughts which deal critically with his (sic) own thinkingIn contrast, the adolescent is able to analyze his own thinking and construct theoriesOf course, the girls are more interested in marriage, but the husband they dream of is most often łtheoretical˛, and their thoughts about married life as well take on the characteristics of łtheories˛. Jean Piaget (1958) The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence
---------- >From: "Nate Schmolze" <schmolze@students.wisc.edu> >To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >Subject: RE: RE: The internet and disinformation >Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2000, 10:56 AM >
> Martin, > > Your description of Sherlock 2 reminds me of the ideal of the "rational > subject purchasing in a free market". You know that line they tend to give > you about capitalism in the micro-economic textbooks. > > My step father fits this mold rather well. He uses the phone calling store > after store to find the cheapest or best deal on a product. But, many of us > don't do that. Maybe I just don't fit the capitalist ideal but I form an > affective relationship to the stores I purchase from. These portals have > certain benefits because they speak to (or exploit) that human need for > community. > > The 3 C's are actually content, commerce, and community. I said new because > the old ones were commerce, christianity, and colonialism. For me, the > internet offers many affordances as Ricardo shared that would not be > possible otherwise. I do however assume that cultural tools always have an > irreducible tension as outlined by Wertsch. > > I agree with you that new technology is going to change how we use the > internet, but I see it in the opposite direction that you have shared. > These mergers taking place are not just verticle but horizontal the > AOL-TIMEWARNER merger literally controls part of every information outlet > there is. They have capital in magazines, TV, cable, print, radio, and the > internet. Bill Gates has stepped down as CEO to devote full time to the R&D > of the internet division. > > Ken mentioned the misinformation that was out there. For me that pointed to > not only the constraints of the medium but a call for action. Too often the > left hides behind its scientific studies while the right embraces the > technology to make its case to "civil society". I guess my point is like any > technology we should not view it romantically but critically and > politically. > > Nate > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Owen [mailto:mowen@rem.bangor.ac.uk] > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 10:52 AM > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Re: RE: The internet and disinformation > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes: >>They now talk of the new "3 C's" - commerce, communication, and community >>- >>in that one's subjectivity is not in oppossition to commerce but essential >>for the commerce to take place. So, yes your right that commerce has not >>squelched these other voices because by embracing those voices they are >>guaranteed future profits. Those subjectivities are very much pots of >>gold >>because any portal without a vibrant community will lose advertising $'s >>and >>partnerships with their "family of services". > The going rate, as I understand it, 1000 dollars of capitalisation a > subscriber. The value and accuracy of this figure has obviously got to go > a long way to be validated. As I have sufggested earlier, portlas will > only be of commercial value until we have good enough "agent technology". > As a mac user , Sherlock 2 already fetches me comparative prices (eg for > books), and obviates the need to visit a specific search engine/commerce > site/portal. Its just a short step to good agent technology. No matter how > "hot" your domain name, it will be valueless under that new technological > regime. > > To visit a site in future you will need a good reason to go there, so > content and community may win in the end. > > In the same way I read the finance pages for the politics they teach me... > do look at "Red Herring" or at least their web site (know thine enemy). > > martin O > (In an optimistic mood) >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:02:52 PST