Having missed the first lecture I was anxious to find out what Digital Networks was all about, and why I had to create a Twitter account (which I vowed never to do). As Teo stressed in the lecture, the development of the communication networks we have access to now, and the ones that have become obsolete, didn’t develop in a planned, successive way, but exploded randomly onto the technological playing field. Today, while we use all these technologies concurrently, they all seem to be available in the one place: on our computers, transmitting data via the Internet. We can stream radio, television and music online, use Skype like a telephone, write emails, follow people on twitter etc… It’s easy to forget how many networks we are connected to, and how many people are connected to us.
As a web designer that uses Wordpress, I was particularly interested in Stalder’s examination of Open Source networks. The Internet serves to facilitate a form of collectivist action that isn’t commonly found in Western, capitalist societies. Open Source developers provide any individual with the Internet free access to valuable, quality software and information. Rather than commercial gain, the developers are motivated by the network that they themselves have cultivated. Stalder directs his discussion into an area that I had never considered before. He talks about the way our “commodity culture” and corporations’ unfettered drive for profits have choked the creative element of culture and steered it toward conservatism because there is a formulaic recipe for success and no room to take big risks. When you consider this phenomenon within the context of the Open Source network, the non-for-profit, collectivist mentality of the community fosters an environment of experimentation and innovation. I also find there are parallels between the nature of Open Source networks and Peer-to-peer sharing networks in that the energy or workload of the operation is broken down into smaller tasks and distributed amongst a wide range of people.
There are quite a number of people out there discussing the nature of Open Source networks. Some go into even more detail about the implication of this phenomenon has on society on a larger scale. One author “believes that they way in which masses of people who own the means of production work voluntarily, without compensation, to reach a common goal and share their products in common is not far from the concept of socialism” (wired.com, link below), and has the potential to influence the political sphere and advance socialism... an example of networks contributing to the growth of other networks.
Nice parallel between open source and p2p Jess. As you point out in both cases the flow is largely distributed, without a central controlling hub.
ReplyDeleteHey Jess, I also found the emphasis on how the technology didn't 'progress' in an inevitable way really interesting. We like to think that there is a linear story for how things became what they are, but it doesn't quite work like that! I've always wondered why we end up going one direction rather than another with various 'developments'; i.e. VHS vs Beta or the way 3D died and came back. Some of these choices are obvious, but often I think the reasons are so tied up in the context of the time of development that it is extremely difficult to work out why we decided to work on certain things and abandoned others.
ReplyDelete