This is about the Haves (them) and Have-nots (us).
We (librarians) think what matters is the relationship between the digital haves and have nots, but that doesn't matter as much as really having and not having. I feel that the Haves gave us the Internet so we can kill time, but also, so we can give them new avenues for revenue, and to allow them to create wealth through our unpaid labor. We type faster and faster, creating a tsunami of data which we pray will allow us to float and not sink.
Remember how much Microsoft (and others) was criticized for beta testing software with the public, ensuring free labor while they patched up all the bugs?
Today, all the social networking and social software sites do this as part of the business model. How are people using the service? How can we make money off how people are using the service?
We perform the labor because we perceive utility.
But I guess it's nothing new. We don't own our excitement when we see a touchdown at a pro football game (all images and likenesses are the property of blah, blah, with all those rules: "Unruly behavior which will not be tolerated; the obvious abuse of alcohol or other intoxicants;
fighting, taunting, or any action that may harm or endanger others in the stadium; abusive or foul language and obscene actions; any behavior resulting in the disruption of the game." Why the hell else would I go? How else am I going to be able to show my ass on TV?).
We are being conditioned. For what, I don't know. Need to find Morpheus and Neo.
But we are screwed. We throw more wood (Wow, I mixed fire and water metaphors on the same page. I must be a great writer.) on the fire and hope it doesn't touch our lives. Even if, no, when we express a truth on our blog, it is no longer sacred or holy. The sheer weight of (weightless) data guarantees that no one will reveal profound insight ever again. Not that you won't, but it will never be found or if found, appreciated. We have forfeited that capacity to recognize it from all the shit.
Take music. Is it possible to have a band like The Beatles today? People will say no because they think The Beatles were the best and most influential band of the last 50 years. But the reality is that the contributions made by The Beatles would get lost amid the 15,000 other songs on my iPod.
We are being engineered to accept the loss.
When digital TV becomes mandatory, that's when the transition becomes final. For the last 25 years, most of us could record whatever television programs we wanted, to view at a later date. For example, I have 50+ hours of the program 120 Minutes that I recorded from MTV which I can watch whenever I want (but don't). But future programming can be digitally licensed and time-locked so that I won't be able to view it after the networks or whoever decide that they don't want me to see it anymore for free. When something as familiar as TV becomes passcoded and restricted and the loss becomes acceptable then society will change forever.
I don't think I'm being melodramatic (yes, I do, that's what rants are). All our digital photos, all our online journals, all our downloaded songs are not our property. We own none of it, nothing. All the agreements we accept in order to use these services give our rights away completely. It is only negative publicity that keeps companies from destroying this data or ransoming it back to us. And negative publicity is only powerful if we care. But soon we won't. We will trade our real world for a digital one. And when we do, we will lose something vital.
Just as a handwritten letter beats an email, just as a printed book is preferred to an ebook, these physical things might bind us to each other in ways simple electrons can't. Maybe it's fear of entropy that keeps us wanting physical things, fear of nonexistence. I don't know. but I know that this digital world will consume us and erase us.
You can't build a society on electrons: you can't govern or foment opinion without something people can see and touch. Politicians know they need to stump before elections because we, the people, want our babies shook. They say that the youth are more politically active than ever, but are they qualified to act? The site Civil Literacy says that high school and college students don't know enough about American politics and history. So all you have is a dumb army doing what they're told.
We need the old things. Books, museums, documents. Paper. Humans seem to need these things. The NYT article calls it, "magical value."
If there's any point to this rant, it's that all this online stuff might be tasty and delicious, but it can't possibly nourish our souls (A food metaphor? oh, man, the bad writer hat trick. Let's see, pointless, rambling rant. Water, fire and food metaphors. No coherent idea. This is my bestest post, ever!!!! Aren't you glad you're here?)
After this horrible post, I know he's not going to like it, but here is a better post that looks at this same source material, but makes better reading.
Why 2.0 represents the loss of hope
Burn, Baby, Burn
