- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Tech as neutral
by Barry Wellman 07 Jul '12

07 Jul '12

I send them up Where they come down Is someone else's problem Said Werner von Braun as channeled by Tom Lehrer and paraphrased by me Barry Wellman _______________________________________________________________________ S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director Department of Sociology 725 Spadina Avenue, Room 388 University of Toronto Toronto Canada M5S 2J4 twitter:barrywellman http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-3963 Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php Just published: NETWORKED: The New Social Operating System. Lee Rainie and Barry Wellman. MIT Press. http://www.amazon.com/Networked-New-Social-Operating-System/dp/0262017199/r… Hardbound $19; Kindle $16 http://www.amazon.ca/Networked-New-Social-Operating-System/dp/0262017199/re… _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Technology as ideologically neutral?
by Andrew Schrock 07 Jul '12

07 Jul '12

It's a little new to rise to classic status but Thomas Streeter's The Net Effect does a great job of unpacking the question. A On Jul 7, 2012, at 3:00 PM, air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org wrote: > How about Technology ( nowadays aka "the Internet") AS ideology? > > Radhika Gajjala > Http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik Andrew Schrock USC Annenberg Doctoral Student Twitter: @aschrock Email: aschrock(a)usc.edu Phone: 714.330.6545

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Technology as ideologically neutral?
by André Brock 07 Jul '12

07 Jul '12

Charles, some other suggestions: The critical race and cyberculture literature is where i regularly draw my arguments of 'tech as ideologically neutral' from, since those researchers argue against precisely that perspective. Most of the work is in edited collections and journal special issues: - Tu, Nelson, and Hines "Technicolor" - Alondra Nelson's "AfroFuturism" special issue in Social Work - Kolko, Nakamura, Rodman "Race in Cyberspace" - Silver and Massanari's "Critical Cyberculture Studies" - de la Pena and Vaidhyanathan's "Rewiring the "Nation": The Place of Technology in American Studies" special issue - in American Quarterly - Nakamura and Chow-White "Race after the Internet" for a specifically STS perspective - Pacey (as mentioned earlier) - Marvin (as mentioned earlier) - Michael Adas "Dominance by Design" - Joel Dinerstein "Swinging the Vine" - David Nye "American Technological Sublime" and James Carey's "Communication as Culture" Hope this helps... Andre Brock Assistant Professor - Library and Information Science/POROI University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, <air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org> wrote: > Re: [Air-L] Technology as ideologically neutral?

7 7

Technology-ideology: Interim note + query: comments on "Declaration of Internet Freedom"?
by Charles Ess 07 Jul '12

07 Jul '12

Dear Colleagues First of all, many thanks to the breathtaking number of responses to my earlier query on technology / ideology. In particular, in response to Robert Rattle's comment: > Might it be possible to compile the input and feed it back to the list at some > future date? I'm sure you've received many off list contributions and the > bibliography would be invaluable. Of course - but this will take a bit of time; preferring an "opt-in" to an "opt-out" approach, I'll be in touch with individual respondents to get their yea/nay on sharing resources so generously shared. In the meantime - has anyone taken a careful, critical look at the "Declaration of Internet Freedom" campaign that has popped up this week - <http://act.freepress.net/sign/internetdeclaration/> from <http://www.freepress.net/>. It enjoys the support of the usual (good) suspects. But I'd be curious to see what responses AoIRists are making to this? All best, C. -- Until August 31, 2012: Professor MSO Media Studies, Institute for Aesthetics and Communication Aarhus University Helsingforsgade 14 8200 Aarhus Denmark >From 1. Sept. 2012: Associate Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication Forskningsparken II Gaustadalléen 21 0349 Oslo Norway Lifetime member, AoIR ³At vove er at miste fodfæstet for en stund, ikke at vove er at miste sig selv² [To dare is to lose your footing for an hour; not to dare is to lose yourself] - Kierkegaard

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Air-L Digest, Vol 96, Issue 7
by Marie Boran 06 Jul '12

06 Jul '12

Hi Charles, I myself am interested in the notion of search engine neutrality and there is a lot of literature around this. It has become especially significant in an era of personalised search. You've probably read Halavais' Search Engine Society and Pariser's The Filter Bubble. I also came across plenty of good papers on the subject when I was writing my dissertation on personalised search, climate change science and confirmation bias. There is, to some extent, still the assumption that newspapers and traditional media are inherently biased while search engines merely index and deliver links as a neutral middleman. I have my references (and dissertation) squirrelled away in a folder somewhere and can send them on to you if you like. Best, Marie Boran PhD candidate - DERI, NUI, Galway. On 5 Jul 2012, at 23:00, air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org wrote: >> I'm trying to gather both accessible and, to some degree, "landmark" or >> foundational literature that can be used to (gently) challenge a view I keep >> encountering in certain circles lately - namely, that technology in general >> and the Internet in particular is "ideologically neutral".

1 0

Technology as ideologically neutral?
by Charles Ess 06 Jul '12

06 Jul '12

Dear AoIRists, I'm trying to gather both accessible and, to some degree, "landmark" or foundational literature that can be used to (gently) challenge a view I keep encountering in certain circles lately - namely, that technology in general and the Internet in particular is "ideologically neutral". Such a view was around in the U.S. in the early days of the Internet - but countered in at least two ways; those who took up Social Construction of Technology and related theory from ST studies, including discussion of "affordances", etc. - and then the very ideological claims (roughly: California libertarian technological utopianism) that went from claims such as "the internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it" to claims that the Internet embedded and fostered specially U.S. (neoliberal) values of individualism, freedom of expression, and free market capitalism. For better and for worse, however, my impression is that in our communities, at least, the recognition that the technologies embed and foster specific cultural values and communicative preferences (as I like to put it on the basis of the CATaC conferences) has been more or less a given for quite some time. Hence, having to re-visit and re-establish these understandings for those for whom this recognition is apparently quite new is a bit of a challenge. Any suggestions for literature, etc., would be most appreciated. Many thanks in advance, - charles ess -- Until August 31, 2012: Professor MSO Media Studies, Institute for Aesthetics and Communication Aarhus University Helsingforsgade 14 8200 Aarhus Denmark >From 1. Sept. 2012: Associate Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication Forskningsparken II Gaustadalléen 21 0349 Oslo Norway Lifetime member, AoIR ³At vove er at miste fodfæstet for en stund, ikke at vove er at miste sig selv² [To dare is to lose your footing for an hour; not to dare is to lose yourself] - Kierkegaard

15 14

Call for proposals - 2013 World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights
by Jeremy Blackman 06 Jul '12

06 Jul '12

Dear air-list members, The Alannah and Madeline Foundation is organising the cybersafety stream for the 2013 World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights, in Sydney. We would welcome your input to the Congress. Please see the letter below, which outlines the call for proposals. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss. Kind regards, Jeremy Blackman Senior Cybersafety Specialist The Alannah and Madeline Foundation Level 1, 256 Clarendon Street | PO Box 5192 South Melbourne VIC 3205 t. 03 9697 0627 | f. 03 9690 5644 | m. 0438 066 625 w. www.amf.org.au | Follow us on Facebook This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information which is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email. Re: Call for session proposals for the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights, Sydney, 17-20 March 2013 I am writing to invite you to participate in the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights to be held in Sydney from 17-20 March 2013. The World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights is a significant event held every four years to bring international attention to the serious issue of the safety of children. Supported by the United Nations, the World Congress is an Australian initiative with worldwide support and recognition. Attracting judges, lawyers, legislators, policy makers, doctors, healthcare professionals, non-government organisations, educators and human rights organisations, the World Congress seeks outcomes that promote and protect the rights of children. For further information about the event, you can visit the official website at: www.lawrights.asn.au/ While the conference predominantly focuses on law and children's rights, the 2013 Congress provides The Alannah and Madeline Foundation with an opportunity to emphasise the integral role that schools, the community and children can play in cybersafety education and innovation. The Alannah and Madeline Foundation has been asked to partner with the 6th World Congress to organise a stream dedicated to cybersafety issues and best practice. We invite you and/or those in your networks to submit a proposal for a session as part of the cybersafety stream, which we envisage to encompass the following broad issues: * Cybersafety: youth, children and the legal frameworks * Psychology and sociology of online behaviour * Cybersafety education and the role of schools, children, families and the community * Disadvantaged and vulnerable youth in the online world * The nature and design of online environments and their suitability for youth * Positive opportunities for youth in the online world. In striving for an informative and engaging event, we are assembling a range of presentation types, from lecture-style to highly interactive workshops. Further information regarding submissions can be found below. The deadlines for proposal submissions are as follows: * Call for proposals closes: Friday 3rd August * Inform speakers: Friday 17th August We hope you will give consideration to becoming involved in the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights; it will have a major impact in helping to protect children in Australia and across the world. The Foundation is coordinating the cybersafety stream, so please send your proposals and/or queries to: Jeremy Blackman, Senior Cybersafety Specialist - jeremy.blackman(a)amf.org.au or +61 (3) 9697 0666. Yours sincerely, The Hon. Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC National Centre Against Bullying (NCAB) Chair Overview of proposal submissions: Presentations will not necessarily be restricted to any of the six cybersafety themes listed above. There is room to consider sessions on any area of cybersafety that might be of interest to an international congress. Session length: 45 or 90 minutes Proposal length: 150 - 200 words Proposal to contain: * Overview of session content * Description of format (e.g. lecture style, workshop, interactive discussion) * Intended outcome(s) of session (i.e. the key concepts your audience members will take away) * Ideal session length (45 or 90 minutes) * Name and contact details of presenter(s). Please send proposals to: Jeremy Blackman, Senior Cybersafety Specialist - jeremy.blackman(a)amf.org.au or +61 (3) 9697 0666. All proposals will be reviewed by The Alannah and Madeline Foundation's World Congress Committee before being accepted.

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Technology as ideologically neutral?
by Andrew Schrock 05 Jul '12

05 Jul '12

Any discussion pushing back on the neutrality of technology would be remiss if it didn't include a feminist perspective. A few classics come to mind that are older but present a powerful critique in an accessible way... Balsamo, A. (1996). Myths of information: the cultural impact of new information technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8(3), 341–348. doi:10.1080/09537329608524256 Cockburn, C., & Ormrod, S. (1993). Gender and technology in the making. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Wajcman, J. (1996). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Raymond Williams' Television seems essential as a response to McLuhan. John Durham Peters presents a broad historical overview of what we mean by the phrase determinism in "two cheers for technological determinism." Among his points are that scholars tend to use "technological determinism" as a pejorative when we are generally more balanced. It's a bit of an input-output problem (back to his work on history of communication) where we tend to pull out ideas that serve as counterpoints. Thus we end up repeating ourselves, avoiding what we perceive as pitfalls but not making any new/strong/interesting claims. I believe he is working it up for a paper but a video is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5u1LhqrMUc A Andrew Schrock USC Annenberg Doctoral Student Twitter: @aschrock Email: aschrock(a)usc.edu Phone: 714.330.6545

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Technology as ideologically neutral?
by Nick Breems 05 Jul '12

05 Jul '12

Hi Charles: Though probably not foundational or landmark, I have often found Stephen Talbott's writings on technology to be fairly accessible. He has a fairly short "FAQ" on Computerized Technology and Human Responsibility" at http://www.netfuture.org/faq.html. The complete text of his book "The Future Does Not Compute: Transcending the Machines in Our Midst" is available online at http://netfuture.org/fdnc/. Chapter 11, in particular, can be read more-or-less on its own, and addresses the question of technology neutrality in a novel way. A couple of quotes: >From Question 9 from the above-reference FAQ: Q. Isn't technology neutral? 'Guns don't kill people; people do' A. Yes, only people can do bad things. But every technology already embodies certain of our choices. A gun, after all, was pretty much designed to kill living organisms at a distance, which gives it a different nature from, say, a pair of binoculars. The computer takes this much further, since its whole purpose is to bear our meanings and intentions with a degree of explicitness, subtlety, intricacy, and completeness unimaginable in earlier machines. Every executing program is a condensation of certain human thinking processes. At a more general level, the computer embodies our resolve to approach much of life with a programmatic or recipe-like (algorithmic) mindset. That resolve, expressed in the machinery, is far from innocent or neutral when, for example, we begin to adapt group behavior to programmed constraints. So we meet ourselves--our deepest tendencies, whether savory or unsavory, conscious or unconscious--in the things we have made. And, as always, the weight of accumulated choices begins to bind us. Our freedom is never absolute, but is conditioned by what we have made of ourselves and our world so far. The toxic materials I spread over my yard yesterday restrict my options today. >From Chapter 11 of the book: "...The Net can be neither liberating nor oppressive in its own right. It's all a question of what we do with it. It's not the Net we're talking about here; it's you and me. And surely that's the only place to begin. Neither liberation nor oppression can become living powers in any soil except that of the human heart. As soon as we put the matter this way, however, we can begin to talk about the "nature" of the Net. Not some absolute, intrinsic nature, to be sure, but an established character -- a kind of active willfulness -- that ultimately derives from our character. Our technological expressions, after all, do exhibit certain tendencies, patterns, biases, and these can, to one degree or another, be read. But it remains true that what we are reading -- what we have expressed through the technology -- can only be something of ourselves. We should not ask, "Is technology neutral?" but rather, "Are we neutral in our use of technology?" And, of course, one hopes we are not. No striving for what is good, true, and beautiful -- or for their opposites -- can reasonably be called neutral." Nick Breems - PhD Student @ University of Salford - Assistant Professor of Computer Science @ Dordt College (on leave) Email: nbreems(a)dordt.edu Mobile phone: (from UK): 0771 822 9005 (from US): 011 44 771 822 9005 >>> On Thursday, July 05, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Charles Ess <charles.ess(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear AoIRists, > I'm trying to gather both accessible and, to some degree, "landmark" or > foundational literature that can be used to (gently) challenge a view I keep > encountering in certain circles lately - namely, that technology in general > and the Internet in particular is "ideologically neutral". > > Such a view was around in the U.S. in the early days of the Internet - but > countered in at least two ways; those who took up Social Construction of > Technology and related theory from ST studies, including discussion of > "affordances", etc. - and then the very ideological claims (roughly: > California libertarian technological utopianism) that went from claims such > as "the internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it" to > claims that the Internet embedded and fostered specially U.S. (neoliberal) > values of individualism, freedom of expression, and free market capitalism. > > For better and for worse, however, my impression is that in our communities, > at least, the recognition that the technologies embed and foster specific > cultural values and communicative preferences (as I like to put it on the > basis of the CATaC conferences) has been more or less a given for quite some > time. Hence, having to re-visit and re-establish these understandings for > those for whom this recognition is apparently quite new is a bit of a > challenge. > > Any suggestions for literature, etc., would be most appreciated. > > Many thanks in advance, > - charles ess

1 0

CeDEM-Asia-2012
by Nathaniel Poor 05 Jul '12

05 Jul '12

Hello everyone, a conference announcement. Apologies if you've received it before. (Hmm ok the submission deadline is in 10 days. Well I know the organizers, it should be a good conference.) International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government: Social & Mobile Media for Governance 14-15 November 2012, Singapore Website: http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/cedem OPEN FOR SUBMISSIONS Submission Deadline: 15 July 2012 Call for Papers: http://tinyurl.com/CFP-CeDEM-Asia-2012 (PDF) Conference Chairs * Nojin Kwak (University of Michigan, USA) * Peter Parycek (Danube University Krems, Austria) * Marko M. Skoric (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) ------------------------------- Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. http://natpoor.blogspot.com/ https://sites.google.com/site/natpoor/

1 0