Blog 7 – Network Culture

Towards Digitally Exploring the Technocultural History of Networks and Feedback

This blog contains information which I have gathered from the week 6 lectures and readings poster on Blackboard. One of the important points covered were that networks are one type of internet which is connected by computers. “A network can be defined as a collection of links between elements of a unit.” – (The Network Society P.24). The internet was originally used in the 60’s by the military, then known as Telegraphy used for sending signals. The start of telecommunication began in 166 where they lay cables all over the world; this was the official start of Network Culture. The internet being short for interconnected computers. We look at the network culture now and think its most people’s lives, they have jobs, social lives, hobbies, education and love based on it but all it really is are cables and computers, it is nothing that can be physically held, the idea of it is absolutely genius.

“Networks are appropriate instruments for a capitalist economy based on innovation, globalization, and decentralized concentration; for work, workers, and firms based on flexibility and adaptability; for a culture of endless deconstruction and reconstruction; for a polity geared toward the instant processing of new values and public moods; and for a social organization aiming at the supersession of space and the annihilation of time”   
                                                                                                                          -(Castells, 2001, p. 502).

The bolded sentence means that he pace and time is imploded. Space distance takes a time to cross but thanks to telecommunications space disappears and communication is instant abolishing space. Were now living in the post-industrial stage of information superhighway.

Internet sites now depend on feedback like products to improve; feedback is comments or opinions from the customer to give back to the managers. It’s a never ending process where they will improve their site and audiences will give more feedback and so forth.

To become an active member of most sites you have to register, now when you register you write down your basic information and wallah online profile is born, you have a Data Double. Now if you ask yourself, who is most popular? You; the physical person or you on the internet which is made up by letters, photos? Because the reality is there are online celebrities on social networking sites who are famous for just being famous on the internet. I myself prefer to keep my Facebook friend list to an absolute minimum where it actually contains the people I’m most closest to, whom I feel comfortable sharing embarrassing pictures and thought going through my mind etc. I prefer to keep the friend list to a minimum because I don’t want to be defined as the person whom I am online and therefore I keep online time limited because I don’t want communication to be through a screen – I’d rather it be face to face where I can see the company laughing and hearing the sound of their voice. Like it or not we all have a Data Double, the bank can tell how much money we spend and what we spend it on – if it’s by card. The university server can watch what programmes the students are going on. The police have records of everyone who’s caused an offence and the list is never ending. The point I’m trying to make is that we start to lose control over the privacy which we choose to share or not. Our information is valuable and so is our privacy.

“Privacy concerns revolve around the challenging of the distinction between public and private life. Such matters bring to light issues of maintaining public inaccessibility to parts of our lives, the right and capacity to be left alone and the extent to which we can determine both what is held about us and the accuracy of such data”
                                                                                                                                      -(Larose and Rifon, 2006).

In this week’s reading the author claims that social networking between humans has always been, even when we were living in small tribes thousands of years ago.

“Our distant ancestors created a social solidarity within small bands by talking together, and exchanging information and goods. Furthermore, bands interacted and communicated with each other, if only sporadically”                                                                                                                - J.R and W McNeill (2003)

The author to Network society states that the McNeill’s believed that there were 5 world-wide webs and that “The extension of these webs was not only driven by biological necessity, but also by the need and desire to make new discoveries and material conquests to improve the conditions of life. In these webs, not only speech and information in general were exchanged, but also goods, technologies, ideas, crops, weeds, animals and diseases.”  - (The Network Society P.22)

1.       ‘The first World Wide Web’ 1200 years ago. The spread of humans in order to hunt, gather tribes, cultural, technological and gene evolvement.

2.       ‘Metropolitan and City Webs’ 6000 years ago. Migrated to cities and towns, communities and neighbours began to be strangers.

3.       ‘Old World Web’ 2000 years ago. Improvement of transportation.

4.       ‘Cosmopolitan Webs’ 1450 years ago. Improvement of overseas travel.

5.       ‘Global Web’ 160 years onwards communities thickened rather than continuing to widen. ‘The volume and velocity of communication increased markedly. The number and use of new means of transport and communication exploded with trains, automobiles and aeroplanes, together with telegraphs’. - (The Network Society P.23)

But with today’s network, is it true that we waste our lives staring at a non-existent image on a screen. How has it come to be that people are most willing to invest their time doing this? How much do we need the internet? How much do we trust the internet? Could we now go back to living without it?

“The use of communication networks does not only rely on vulnerable technology, but also of typically social and mental phenomena such as trust, commitment and richness of information exchanged. A lack of these characteristics also makes network communication insecure and is able to lead to its break-down.”
                                                                                                                - (The Network Society P.41)