[iDC] some remarks on ludocapitalism

[Trebor Scholz]

Dear Brian, 

Thanks for your post. I very much enjoy your passionate and
authoritative mash-up of cultural studies, media philosophy and
political science that corresponds with many lines of discussion that we
are having on this list for some time now. 

When situating our daily activities in between exploitation and
utilization, however, we (the silent and writing participants on the
iDC) need to discuss the Web 2.0 Ideology by considering not only desire
but also the concrete techniques, platforms and technologies that shape
the milieus of so-called "free" sociality. 

>a situation whose parameters have been deliberately
>designed by an organization that is looking to maximize the 
>profitability of one or several of your behaviors
>What is best practice, and what is bad practice? 

Unquestionably, the nature of labor has changed drastically, class
composition is altering, and life itself is put to work. From where I
stand, however, things look less binary than you make them out to be. 
Today, it's not the same kind of "grinding down of souls and bodies
under oppression" that the Operaists cursed with a passion. 

Paolo Virno talks of Post-Fordism as the "communism of capital." Workers
today are implicated through affect (e.g., play) and stock options; they
are not radically on the other side.

The current dynamic is better described as a liquid, complex tradeoff
between users and corporate platform providers that cannot be easily
labeled as "profitable manipulation" as it fulfills deep social needs of
users. 

It'd be wrong to blame today's US American youth (those who spend a
significant amount of their time online instead of having sex or
watching TV) for hooking up that way, in the face of urban
sprawl, the migratory/networked lifestyle (which you addressed spot-on
in many texts), over-controlling parents and a general culture of fear. 

We can also consider Amazon.com, a company that has undeniably put many
small bookstores out of business while at the same time creating the
opportunity to make a living for close to one million individuals who
sell used books through their site (with a small proportion of that
profit going to Jeff Bezos).  

>What is exploitation? 
>How can it be identified?

To identify exploitation of what is perhaps best described as "life
labor," I'd point to the specific ways in which privacy, exit costs (for
users) and the ability to migrate platforms are addressed by dominant
context providers for social life online. Good practices are marked by
transparency of the rules of the game (e.g., privacy and IP) and the
highest degree of control given to the user over contributed content.
Long live free-range data.   

At the same time, we should not forget that those very many people who
partake on the Social Web love spending time face-to-face and that most
social networking is a patch soothing the mentioned societal wounds
while at the same time producing monetary value for the very few.

>The other, more immediate thing is to directly attack the most
exploitative aspects of the new capitalism, typically by disruptive
protest actions that take place, not in a closed workplace environment,
but in the open milieu from which value is now being siphoned off.

I'll pick two effective examples of the latter. 

In September 2006, Facebook launched a "news feed" feature causing
protest and responses by 741,000 users who joined the Students Against
Facebook News Feed group. 

In terms of time management, addiction and identity it is telling that
the strongest threat that the 34 million FB users could think of was a
"Day Without Facebook." One day. 
http://daywithoutfacebook.blogspot.com/

Zuckerberg responded: “Even though I wish I hadn't made so many of you
angry, I am glad we got to hear you,” he wrote. “And I am also glad that
News Feed highlighted all these groups so people could find them and
share their opinions with each other as well.” http://tinyurl.com/y3fedz

On May 1, 2007 an article appeared on Digg’s homepage that contained the
encryption key for the AACS digital rights management protection of HD
DVD and Blu-ray Disc. Digg, removed the submissions and banned
contributors. Many users saw the removals as a capitulation to corporate
interests and an assault on free speech. The Digg community staged a
widespread "revolt." One of the Digg users referred to it as a "Digital
Boston Tea Party." 

Digg’s Kevin Rose responded:
“[A]fter seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments,
you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow
down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we
won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with
whatever the consequences might be.”  

Both of these examples are widely known. The ease with which information
flows and users can organize has changed. Participants on the Social Web
clearly have new "strategies of tension" at their avail. We do have more
negotiating power than in the past. The Web is a social laboratory and a
place of political creativity that is not built out of
class-consciousness.

But how does this extend to the current situation in Burma? The "Support
the Monks' protest in Burma" Facebook Group has 301, 273 members on
October 03, 2007. People discuss and exchange links but one could also
be skeptical and say that joining this group, which is effortless,
simply helps us to deal with the cozy feeling of powerlessness and
liberal guilt. "What did you do about Burma today?" "I joined a group on
Facebook."

But maybe it is such low threshold engagement that is, in fact,
sustainable. Putnam in another context describes how associations like
AAA and the National Riffle Association still enjoy high membership, as
it does not take more than one small annual check a year to be a member
and the benefits are palpable. 
       
>How to develop relations of solidarity and reciprocal emulation that do
>not freeze up the interaction, but don't leave it open to predatory
behaviors either?

>"deep bonds of participation" that
>networked  connections are helping to create.

Behaviors of corporate platform providers are very rarely solely
"predatory" and I would characterize the bonds of participation as
tentative at best. After having analyzed the small print and history of
hundreds of Social Web services, there are few that I'd identify as
predators. 

The social networking site TAGGED is clearly one of them: they are truly
scary http://tinyurl.com/3c4fby. Sites like Facebook and Bebo have
troubling privacy statements but the one billion people on the Web
simply get much too much out of their “life of labor” to be considered
prey. 

All the best,
Trebor Scholz