While the four videos were extremely optismistic and
eye-opening, I think there are some obvious concerns with the solutions they
present. To begin, I don’t think the ideas that they have are entirely new
(such as Dash illustrating that networks have always existed, Priebatsh’s game
layer already in development, the principles were always there), but rather
that now is the time to specialize in these different online communities, these
game networks in order to make them work for us in a different way (other than
for entertainment).
The problem I have with Dash and Anderson deals with
filtering. Yes, networks can empower those who are born with little to no
connection, yes, networks help us learn from each other and ask us to work
harder to solve problems; but if we have an “open” network or database that
allows anyone access to uploading content, where do we even begin to manage
that content? How do we sort out the really good ideas, the really feasible and
innovative ideas from the sea of information? And who gets to decide what’s
good?
Librarians and educators have been the gateway to “good”
knowledge (and so anyone who thinks libraries or a good teacher are obselete
have another thing coming) and I think
that library science has been making strides in trying to close the gap of
everyone having access but also opportunity. When we think about filter bubbles
and algorhithms that shape our world, and of Google, we get the idea that they
are also trying to sort out the “good” from the bad. The other day I had to
think about it, however; what really is the difference between Google and a
library system? How can we call Google “evil” when they’ve just tried to bring
information to all people just as libraries have done? Filter bubbles have been
existant for a long time; librarians and educators could be said to be the
first actively advocating one text over another, and at what cost?
But perhaps I’ve been too simple. Like Priebatsh stated,
Facebook and social media online have already established the networking base
that we can manipulate with another layer to do whatever we want with. What
happens to information (and particularly “good” information) when we begin
trying to capitalize on people’s instincts and emotions of gaming? When we
create an emotional need to return to a specific store or a specific website in
order to “win,” how are we effecting the filter of other types of information?
His example was Digg’s leaderboard – when the top 7 people banded together to recommend
articles in order to remain on top, those 7 people effectively created a filter
that destroyed the ability for other articles to be noticed.
And as for McGonigal – what makes her think that people will
be interested in the type of games that she is trying to make, over another
type of game that could have very little impact on the kind of life that we
live, the other games that only strive to make profits and can more fully engage
an audience? The only way that we can make these kind of changes that these
people ask for is either to trust in the human capability for wanting the
improvement of society or the establishment of a system to ensure that “good”
games will only be produced and used, which isn’t ideal, either.
Have you read Barbara Herstein Smith? She discusses the notion that taste and what we read has been past down based on these social institutions such as libraries, and schools. She states, “for the cultural institutions through which it operates…are of course managed by persons…and since the texts that are selected and preserved by “time” will always tend to be those which “fit”…their characteristic needs, interests, resources, and purposes, that testing mechanism has its own built in partialities accumulated in and thus intensified by time” (1816). The "their" she is referring to is librarians and leaders within this social space. I love the way you coin them as "filter bubbles" because it reveals the authority held in any space by those that have access to information. Although everyone seemingly has access to information now online, the creators and promoters will always have more control than the user.
ReplyDeleteYet, the capitalization of gaming tries to make it seem as though the user is in control. I agree that creating an emotional response creates a strange sense of duty on the user, yet I think that is how gaming becomes completely rhetorical. Not only is the language constructing a new reality but a reason/motivation for maneuvering within this new reality. That links to networking by enabling people maneuver within the new media of informational websites and social media because it gives people a reason or a motivation behind being a participant. It makes it seem as though there is something that people truly want from new media besides just cat videos, I am curious as to what that is? Rather than being in a game like world where there is a mission or an end goal, what is the end goal of social media? I would like to think it goes beyond just connecting with people that should have been left to high school, but it continues on with full force. And it truly makes me wonder whether or not these consequences are true off line as well?