Albrechtslund discusses the notion that online social networking is a kind of participatory surveillance. In doing so, he redefines the concept of surveillance and develops his analysis for how it is both participatory and mutually beneficial.
Albrechtslund identifies cyberspace as a spacial metaphor for the internet. There are similar related analogies such as global village, information highway, world wide web, etc. The spatial discourse relating to computers is an attempt to organise and classify the internet. However the internet is not hierarchical and is not constrained by the same laws as physical space. Therefore the internet cannot be described in terms of classic organisation.
Furthering the non-linear view of the internet, Albrechtslund notes the interrelated space between the cyberspace and physical space. In such, it’s demonstrated that social network is not only an online practice.
Digital society has a number of key issues to be considered. One key issue is that of persistency. All information, including relationships, is stored online indefinitely. This is a consideration relating to social practices being no longer temporary, their organisation and audiences. As well as persistency, social networks are a mediated public space characterised by their searchability, replicability and invisible audiences. Searchability refers to information being made available through keywords and phrases, allowing for collection and sorting of information. Replication is the ability to detach communication (including pictures and video) from its original source. It can be perfectly reproduced, altered and put into other contexts (remixed). Lastly there’s the notion of invisible audiences. This concept is the idea that although we may have an intended audience (friends and family) there is a larger potential audience – everyone with access to the internet.
Redefining Surveillance. Albrechtslund takes the traditional notion of surveillance and changes its purpose. Surveillance is commonly used in a hierarchical sense – the watcher and the watched – or as data collection. However social networking has created an environment where people are willingly publishing this information online. It’s free for all to see and collect. This, Albrechtslund claims, is empowering. It’s a form of social and playful surveillance. Simply put, it’s exhibitionism.
This explains the moral panics, conspiracy theories and dystopian views of digital culture – the people who don’t understand why anyone would engage in online social networking and willingly share personal information.
Thus, surveillance can be seen, in a social networking sense, as a mutual horizontal practice. Instead of top-down, hierarchal surveillance, people are able to watch themselves and their friends, family and acquaintances. This empowers participants, builds subjectivity and promotes sharing. Albrechtslund calls this mutuality – participatory surveillance.
user empowerment
social networking as space sharing
mutuality
As already noted, participatory surveillance is a kind of empowering exhibitionism. It’s the self construction of identity and a tool used to rebel against shame associated with not being ‘private’. Exhibitionism is a liberating force against the refusal to be humble.
I like this idea. We socialise with strangers and construct identities (both real and anonymous). We move from passive to active by participating in culture creation and sharing. This sharing should not be underestimated, since it is the core of how social networks function.
Pew Internet is a good source for quantitative data regarding teens and internet use. Their recent reports have made some interesting conclusions about teen behavior online. Most of the following data is from the Teens 2012 keynote by Dr K. Purcell.
Some of the more interesting findings summarised. For the following data, the term ‘teen’ refers to the age group 12-17 (school age) teenagers unless otherwise stated.
80% of teens use social networks
95% of teens use the internet (the highest age group)
88% of teens use a desktop/laptop computer to access the internet
49% of teens use a phone to access the internet
Phones:
77% of teens have a cell/mobile phone
only 23% have a smart phone
47% of teens talk to friends on the phone several times a week or more (decreasing)
69% of teens send text messages several times a week or more (increasing)
only 17% of teens send emails several times a week or more
Some surprises there. The low frequency of smartphones amongst teens is likely due to their high cost and relative “newness” in the tech market. Teens are more interested in texting than talking. Email is not a popular option amongst teens, possibly because it’s not considered mobile or immediate. More effort is required to email whereas texting is short and faster.
Social Media
93% of teens have a facebook account
16% of teens use twitter, of which 12% have an account
only 2% of teens use tumblr and skype
27% of teens record and upload videos of themselves online
62% of teens keep their profiles private (viewable only by friends)
39% of adults have “friended” their children on social networking sites
Clearly teens prefer facebook as their go-to social networking venue. Very few use twitter (more common amongst adults) and almost no teens use tumblr or skype (which is surprising!). Also, teens seem to be good at maintaining their privacy online and quite a few connect to their parents on social networking sites as well.
While the BBC has done a good job of surveying wider opinions regarding teens and technology, they’ve fallen short by focusing on the views of kids who are well educated, mature and responsible.
I don’t know how many 14 year old would use the word ‘hierarchy’ in a conversational setting, but I get the feeling that the BBC is putting quite a positive spin on teens and their technology.
Don’t get me wrong, the overall view of youth and technology should be positive … but not all teens use their tech toys in a positive way. there’s a lot of negative sides to the use of tech as well.
It’d be good if the BBC’s thoughts on the issue were more well rounded.
It irks me that so many people are positioning themselves as tech-pocolyptics … bemoaning the view that technology is the cause of our problems and that money is being wasted trying to make schools technology hubs.
Cuban’s blog, while usually interesting, takes a view that technology is being wrongly viewed as a ‘magic bullet’ to solve all of educations problems. Cuban has asserted, mistakenly, that “many fantasize” about the notion of technology replacing teachers.
Humans are, by our very nature, social creatures. The internet is redefining the way people interact, no doubt, but not isolating people like some would suggest. The internet is creating a space, a new literacy, where people can interact in larger, less structured groups.
Teachers will be replaced by devices and robots? The idea is ludicrous. It’s even more ludicrous to suggest that many fantasize about it. There will always be teachers. Perhaps we will call them mentors or guides. But they will be educators and their space will change as new technologies emerge (which is a good thing, since education has been static for over a century). So on one hand Cuban can generalise that there’s a desire for teachers to become redundant, but educators will always have a place in society – it’s just that their role might be redefined – which is long overdue.
Cuban’s critique on Mitra’s TED talk and his ambitions for cloud learning is also unwarranted. Cuban is also quick to point out the perceived failure of the OLPC (one laptop per child) program. He alludes to Mitra’s inevitable failure as well.
Failure is not a bad thing. As an eminent academic once said to me “fail early, fail often”. This is a way of learning through experimentation. OLPC was doomed to failure but that’s not the point. Mitra’s cloud schooling in India will never be a success, but that’s not important either. What’s important is that these people are pushing at the edges of learning and technology and finding ways of making it work.
Ask any scientist how often they fail compared to how often they succeed. Why are we so afraid of failure?
While I agree that education has a tendency to shoehorn technology in the classroom and hope it’s a success. But there needs to be a differentiation between the politics of “student / computer ratios” and educational innovators who are trying to find solutions in an ever shifting technology landscape. Wasting millions of dollars on interactive whiteboards (which every teacher hates) is completely different to funding experimental programs to test ideas involving new technologies.
The OLPC concept started before smart phones, before raspberri pi, before a laptop was an accessible technology. Right now it looks antiquated but the idea was revolutionary.
Cuban would prefer that taxpayers, parents and politicians be assuaged.
I’d like to finish with a quote by Mitra himself, since he was the target of Cuban’s rant.
I said schools as we know them now, they’re obsolete. I’m not saying they’re broken. It’s quite fashionable to say that the education system’s broken. It’s not broken. It’s wonderfully constructed. It’s just that we don’t need it anymore. It’s outdated.
I think this is the most important rebuttal to Cuban’s thinking. Education and politics continues to drag its heels looking for “magic bullets” perhaps, but instituting no real change. While we defer to parents and politicians for fiscal accountability, kids sit in classrooms that they hate while being bombarded with an education they loathe.
I may not be as eloquent as Mr Cuban. However it’s easy to criticise without actually offering a productive way forward. I’m tired of deferring decision making to parents and politicians who have no clue about technology and no actual interest (beyond re-election promises) in fixing problems.
The longer we allow people to hold technology back, the worse the problem gets.
‘Bottom dollar’ thinking is stifling creativity and innovation. Politics and political point scoring are wasting money. Teaching mindsets are 19th century … and children are the ones suffering.