User:Dusan Barok: Difference between revisions
(→Essays) |
(→Essays) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
==Essays== | ==Essays== | ||
===Tactics of leaking and politics of the common=== | |||
Essay on the universality of knowledge from opposing points of view of Wikileaks and Wikipedia. | |||
Written on November-December 2010. | |||
Essay: [[Media:Dusan.essay.trimester-1.Tactics-of-Leaking.finale.pdf|Download]] | |||
===Like Powered Census=== | |||
The critique of social graph, written on February-April 2011. | |||
; Abstract | |||
In recent years, social graph surfaced as the representation of how people are present on the web and how they are related to each other, on a global scale. It is generated by user activity on a wide range of social networking sites. Being offered the privacy control settings within the network, the users "perform their privacy" and voluntarily feed in the content designated solely for their peers. This creates not only "walled gardens" of closed systems, but more importantly, "privacy lock-in" for users who are left to demand protection of their personal data. | |||
By creating a problematic private/public divide, the network owners are justified to take upon the role of protector, "privatise" the private data and enclose the social graph generated in this way. The owners extract the value and monetise these data sets particularly through direct marketing and social commerce by renting data to advertisers and social applications developers. | |||
They also keep control over access to social graph because it serves as their competitive advantage. This process has created the asymmetric power relations, leading to establishment of an oligarchy of social graph owners, particularly Google and Microsoft-backed Facebook, who now dominate the social web. Contrary to the economic means of these companies to make social graph a scarce commodity and acquire value, World Wide Web Consortium released RDF protocol which in combination with FOAF and XFN standards provides an open architecture for social graph as a public good. | |||
After examining the series of events revealing the competition between Facebook and Google over social graph control, and taking a brief look into open standards, the talk will question the very ideology of social graph as an extension of centuries old mechanism of census, viewing it as a technology of power. | |||
; Collected bibliography | |||
http://www.mendeley.com/groups/1060921/social-graph/papers/ | |||
; Next | |||
Essay will be presented and expanded at [http://liwoli.at/programm/2011 Art Meets Radical Openness (Linuxwochen Linz 2011)] meeting in May 2011. | |||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
Revision as of 22:52, 22 April 2011
Bio
Right now I'm keen on diving into SuperCollider software; spoken written Dutch; more writing talking thinking about media culture; and playing a piano.
Running Sanchez free art server, talk to me if you like to have anything hosted!
Last years i've been researching media arts and culture in East/Central Europe in 1960s-90s.
Sites
- http://3hoursold.tumblr.com/page/4
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/51815608@N07/page2/
- http://www.last.fm/user/veriveri
Exercises
- December 2010
- FaceLeaks, http://www.faceleaks.info
Essays
Tactics of leaking and politics of the common
Essay on the universality of knowledge from opposing points of view of Wikileaks and Wikipedia.
Written on November-December 2010.
Essay: Download
Like Powered Census
The critique of social graph, written on February-April 2011.
- Abstract
In recent years, social graph surfaced as the representation of how people are present on the web and how they are related to each other, on a global scale. It is generated by user activity on a wide range of social networking sites. Being offered the privacy control settings within the network, the users "perform their privacy" and voluntarily feed in the content designated solely for their peers. This creates not only "walled gardens" of closed systems, but more importantly, "privacy lock-in" for users who are left to demand protection of their personal data.
By creating a problematic private/public divide, the network owners are justified to take upon the role of protector, "privatise" the private data and enclose the social graph generated in this way. The owners extract the value and monetise these data sets particularly through direct marketing and social commerce by renting data to advertisers and social applications developers.
They also keep control over access to social graph because it serves as their competitive advantage. This process has created the asymmetric power relations, leading to establishment of an oligarchy of social graph owners, particularly Google and Microsoft-backed Facebook, who now dominate the social web. Contrary to the economic means of these companies to make social graph a scarce commodity and acquire value, World Wide Web Consortium released RDF protocol which in combination with FOAF and XFN standards provides an open architecture for social graph as a public good.
After examining the series of events revealing the competition between Facebook and Google over social graph control, and taking a brief look into open standards, the talk will question the very ideology of social graph as an extension of centuries old mechanism of census, viewing it as a technology of power.
- Collected bibliography
http://www.mendeley.com/groups/1060921/social-graph/papers/
- Next
Essay will be presented and expanded at Art Meets Radical Openness (Linuxwochen Linz 2011) meeting in May 2011.