User:Lassebosch/2ndyr/thesis

Lasse van den Bosch Christensen

SKELETON

TITLE: I, for one, welcome our new Overlords

QUESTIONS

What are the charateristics of relationships between a provider of a controlled, closed platform and its community?

Is such a relationship only biased towards the provider? Meaning that the provider hosts the platform, nurish and build up the community on the purpose to generate a monetary value.

How are feelings of both awe and frustration expressed towards the provider during critical periods within platform such as a program-retirement.

How does a community resist the provider?

INTRO:COMMUNITY PANIC

In may 2012 Google announces to sell it's popular 3D-modeling-software Google Sketchup. Within the ownership of Google, the software gained a lot of attention as a tool to populate Google Earth with models made in Google Sketchup. A strong community of socalled 'geo-modelers' grew forth aided and supported by Google. On a voluntary basis these dedicated modelers would spend hours building models to be pushed to Google Earth, motivated by pride in having 'modeled your own town' and knowing that you would be part of a community that actually would build a virtual copy of the earth.

In this introductionary chapter i will describe situation, setting and spirit withing the community of voluntary geo-modellers in the immidiate afterwake of the selling. How users panicked, showing their frustration by cutting their contributions, byt also how others had immense faith in the new, as well as the old provider. They welcomed the new Overlords.

FOCUS: A traumatized community; uncertain future prospects.

<code>    ...I deleted all my [...] models!

...I will also delete all my models!

                ...It is Over.

...People are starting to Jump! 



  ...I, for one, welcome our new [...] Overlords.</code>

Shortly after Google officially announces the selling of it's popular 3D-software 'Google Sketchup', panic is spreading amongst it's huge 3d-modellers community. The users are split in two camps; one camp sceptical towards the unknown implications of an owner change, while the second camp tries to pour oil on the troubled waters attempting a more pragmatic, optimistic approach.

FURTHER: explain the purpose of the thesis - what will happen.

With the notion of 'crowdsourcing', and the current case as a vantage point this text seeks to cover the dymanics of user-provider relationships, looking critically at pitfalls and 'positives' of such symbiosis.

I: Another Case

(book: Uncovering Labour in Information Revolutions, 1750–2000, http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/regional-and-world-history-general-interest/uncovering-labour-information-revolutions-17502000-volume-11)

This chapter will perspectivate to the 'AOL Community Leader Program'. This case has quite strong parallels to the situation within the Sketchup community. Former community leaders describes their relationship with AOL "like a bad relationship", hard to get out of, while geo-modellers express similar 'bittersweet' frustrations. It will look at AOL's argument for using the community: 'This whole volunteerism community and the participants are what makes the Internet' and engage in the discussion of the utopian visions of the internet and how it has been appropriated to acommidate a business model.

The 'AOL Community Leader Program' roots dates back to the use of online remote volunteer "guides" by AOL predecessor QuantumLink at its start in 1985. In the early 1990s 'The Community Leader Program' was officially established, running until its discontinuation in 2005. At the peak of the program, it is estimated that AOL had approximately 14,000 volunteers.(book:Aol by George) AOL customers could volunteer to become 'Community Leaders', carrying a wide range of responsibilities such as hosting chats, board-monitoring, providing customer service and managing forum content. "In exchange for their services, AOL provided free service to their volunteers. Community Leaders also received special accounts (Price Index 77 or Overhead Accounts) that allowed them to restrict disruptive chat, hide inappropriate message board postings, and access private areas on the AOL service, such as the Community Leader Headquarters (CLHQ)." (wiki)

"Although at times controversial, the Community Leader program arguably played a substantial role in the rapid growth and success of the America Online service in the mid-1990s. Because they were usually recruited from the more active users of a particular online forum, Community Leaders were often very passionate about the area for which they volunteered their time. This enthusiasm usually resulted in a greater sense of community and a higher level of professionalism in that forum. This in turn gave the AOL service more value over the less organized "frontier" of the Internet, at least in the eyes of users new to the online scene at the time. It also provided oversight with respect to forum content by knowledgeable individuals." (wiki)

In 1999 seven former community leaders "asked the Department of Labor to investigate whether AOL owes them back wages. On May 25, two of the seven filed a complaint against AOL in federal court in New York, the first volley in a class-action lawsuit that is expected to drag on for over a year. Their attorney Leon Greenberg contends that the arrangement amounts to an illegal "cyber-sweatshop." On July 22, AOL announced the elimination of its youth corps, 350 teenaged CLs. Scores of people have asked to join the lawsuit, say its filers. Meanwhile, the other 13,643-odd volunteers continue to report to "work" on AOL.

Who are these people who choose to personify the 800-pound gorilla of the online world, night after night, virtually for free? And what in the world did AOL do to anger this posse? As much as the lawsuit's outcome will set a precedent for compensating online labor in the future, it offers a window into the weird and wacky world of cyber-codependence - right at the intersection between corporate and personal identity.

"I'm torn by the lawsuit," says Nancy, who is typical of the dozen CLs interviewed for this story. On the one hand, she'd like to get paid for her work; on the other, she doesn't want to lose her volunteer position. Keep her talking, though, and Nancy starts to sound less like a disgruntled employee and more like a battered wife. "I love AOL even though they're really shitty to me," she laughs. "It's like a bad relationship I can't get out of."

(wired 1999: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.10/volunteers.html)

AOL and many other Internet companies have gone a step further, enlisting volunteers in a structured fashion to help control the traffic that can verge on chaos in the virtual world. The question raised now is whether such companies are riding to profitability on the backs of unpaid workers.

AOL defends the system, saying it's part of the culture of the Web.

This whole volunteerism community and the participants are what makes the Internet, said AOL spokeswoman Ann Brackbill.

Ms. Brackbill said volunteer work is coordinated by the company, since the company manages tens of thousands of chat rooms and needs to organize the services of its many volunteers.

But she said the tasks performed by the volunteers ``are very different from AOL employees, and we would make sure of that.

Ivillage.com, an Internet company where 1,100 volunteers outnumber staffers by more than five to one, issued a brief statement Wednesday defending its use of volunteers.

IVillage.com community leaders are true volunteers and not employees, the statement said. Our hope is that the Internet's participatory nature is not what's at issue here.

(AP 1999: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1999/AOL-Volunteers-Claim-Exploitation/id-2a5f7b2fbaa68ee2e71d580f8a2b8b6c)

II: PRODUCTIVE USERS

FOCUS: How to harness the crowd to produce a desired output?

This chapter will extend the argument of exploitation of the "Internet's participatory nature" and look at more recent developlments within this sphere. The idea of Crowdsourcing will be presented, as the key idea for shaping users who, essencially, will work for free. Here Jeff Hoeve's bible 'Crowd Sourcing - Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business' will be used as central source.

I will rewind to the case of Google Sketchup, and dig further into the reasons for google to provide such software, and subsequently selling it.

google acquires Sketchup: reasons

...Already we’ve had hundreds of users create 3D content in SketchUp and place their models in Google Earth. (A free plug-in enables you to do this.) What will that virtual world look like when tens of thousands of users are doing the same?

(http://googleblog.blogspot.nl/2006/03/new-home-for-last-software.html )

Crowdsourcing theory...: Main critique

//game-theory: design systems which generate outcome for the provider but enables 'freedom' for the individual. --> leads to next chapter

III: More than a user?

FOCUS: Mutual dependence? Broaden the perspective of the second chapter. Bring back AOL but also GE-examples, look at the sweet in the bittersweet?

The platform allows not only for regid 'upload' to google earth but spawns a vivid scene of cultures and subcultures. The users evolves strong emotional bonds towards the platform, the community, and the content they've produced. The provider plays a less 'dominant' role since the production is 'benefitting' the user it self. That is until this decides to shut down the platform.

• Enthusiasm amongst the users
• back to the title of the discussion thread: welcome the overlords.
• Users benefit from genuine relationships with other users
• The provider, until a certain point, is dependent on content to be produced by the community. It actually has to invest time/energy/money in buildign up the community and spreading the program

---

unordered notes/clippings

[...] As long as "WE" still have control over editing and the model information we uploaded remains the same, I won't care about anything else (that I can think of right now anyway). Furthermore, as long as the models still identify the Modeler .... so that "WE" are still recognized for each of our works, I think I'll be satisfied.

People are starting to Jump, personally I've started to remove models on a graduated basis. Regards,

We're doing our best. Please be patient and again, try not to react harshly (like removing models) until all the information is published.

All I can say is "Beware of Greeks Baring Gifts" Be very careful what you ask for as one day it just might come true and unfortunately, just when you least expect it and if you think a "overlord" is welcoming just look at history.

Provider/Workers-relationship

<code>- game-theory
- crowd-control
- self-constrainment

- design systems which generate outcome for the provider but enables 'freedom' for the individual.

- holmes/cybernetics
- regulation/law/lessig
- Latour: </code>

'Between a car driver that slows down near a school because she has seen the ‘30 MPH’ yellow sign and a car driver that slows down because he wants to protect the suspension of his car threatened by the bump of a ‘speed trap’, is the difference big or small? Big, since the obedience of the first has gone through morality, symbols, sign posts, yellow paint, while the other has passed through the same list to which has been added a carefully designed concrete slab. But it is small since they both have obeyed something: the first driver to a rarely manifested altruism—if she had not slowed down, her heart would have been broken by the moral law; the second driver to a largely distributed selfishness—if he had not slowed down his suspension would have been broken by the concrete slab. Should we say that only the first connection is social, moral and symbolic, and that the second is objective and material? No. But, if we say that both are social, how are we going to justify the difference between moral conduct and suspension springs? They might not be social all the way through, but they certainly are collected or associated together by the very work of road designers. One cannot call oneself a social scientist and pursue only some links—the moral, legal, and symbolic ones—and stop as soon as there is some physical relation interspersed in between the others. That would render any enquiry impossible.' p.77-78

<code>- a biased game?</code>

I, for one, welcome our new Trimble Overlords - Something more than just exploitation

<code>- the symbiosis (also forth coming in the source material
- we are the gold farmers 
- the 'whatever'</code>

Links

http://www.mastersketchup.com/why-google-doesnt-need-sketchup-anymore/ http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/03/14/google.acquires.sketchup/ http://www.jonathansblog.net/google_earth_sketchup_plugin http://www.constructech.com/news/articles/article.aspx?article_id=9248&SECTION=1 http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2059388/Google-Buys-SketchUp-Google-To-Map-The-World-in-3D http://googlesystem.blogspot.nl/2006/03/google-acquires-sketchup-3d-sketching.html

http://news.cnet.com/Google-acquires-Last-Software/2100-1030_3-6049511.html

official blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.nl/2006/03/new-home-for-last-software.html

Upload to google earth:

http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/57057 https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/earth/BQ3Icb6N5Po

GREAT GROUPS:

examples of new mesh: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/3dwh/Cm_e8-f2EiM

"appeal a model" https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/3dwh/CKEFcdYVQeg

applause for craig d https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sketchup-pro/fS73Zo0kTHU

craig d thanks the community http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5465

alternative solutions open source (search matthiasbasler): https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/?place=forum%2F3dwh&showsearch=true&showpopout=true&parenturl=http%3A%2F%2Fsketchup.google.com%2F3dwarehouse%2Fforum&hl=da#!topic/3dwh/epXUQA2bJ2s%5B1-25-false%5D

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/3dwh/-GQj7OlZshA%5B151-175-false%5D https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/?place=forum/3dwh&showsearch=true&showpopout=true&parenturl=http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/forum&hl=da#!searchin/3dwh/beryl$20reid/3dwh/12RpDeu4Z0M/5JF_3efZ8zYJ

LINKS

http://google-latlong.blogspot.no/2012/06/take-flight-through-new-3d-cities-on.html http://googleblog.blogspot.no/2012/06/never-ending-quest-for-perfect-map.html https://plus.google.com/+GoogleEarth/posts/RCTTNn6kcbA

---

== BACKPORTS ==

SKELETON

TITLE: I, for one, welcome our new Overlords

Outline:

The thesis will examine the relationship between users of online platforms and the provider of such. It will specifically look at motives for using a platform and on the other hand providing it, and how these two can differ entirely but to some extent accommodate each other.

As a case the thesis will focus on the community around a 3D modeling software, recently known as Google SketchUp, and it's close connection to the virtual earth simulation tool Google Earth, which also until recently, allowed users to upload their models built in Google SketchUp.

Google SketchUp was sold in the spring of 2012, and the functionality for users to upload their models to Google Earth was announced retiring as of October 2013, supposedly because of advances made in automated, computed model-making, replacing the need for users to populate Google Earth with their content. These decisions naturally caused an uproar amongst the users of the software and platform, leading to several heated debates filled with anger and despair towards the sale and future role of the modelers. At the same time a dominant awe towards the provider and strong faith in it's decisions is present, shedding light on the almost godlike position of such.

A user-based discussion thread on the sale of Google SketchUp and how the modelers handle the situation, will be held as a central source, and used as a 'backbone' for the thesis. The discussion thread is named: 'I, for one, welcome our new Trimble Overlords', Trimble being the new owners of Sketchup. This title already indicates the distinguished relationship between users and provider.

From this departure the thesis will dive in to the trending idea of 'crowdsourcing' and address its 'gray areas' of outsourcing and exploitation. It will further look upon ideas of game-theory; how to construct a 'game' or a system generating an optimized outcome, trough 'rules' based on technical restrictions built into the soft/hardware or based on certain social/psychological triggers.

Broadening this line of thought, the thesis will elaborate on the emergence of a strong social and cultural scene which can emerge within such a system, arguably crossing the boundaries of pure exploitation of the users. In the case of Google SketchUp/Google Earth the emotional attachments users gradually builds by populating the virtual earth, clearly shines trough the aspect of exploitation, yet they are extremely dependent on the provider since it serves the entire habitat in which the users 'roam'. The users passionately generate content for the platform, while the provider makes the existence of the platform a reality and aggregate value from the content generated. A certain, fragile, asynchronous relationship between users and provider becomes more clear.

Throughout the thesis additional smaller case studies will be brought in, making space for a deeper cultural, more general understanding of relationships between communities and providers, also addressing the issues of sudden 'rupture' within a platform and the mutual dependence between users and providers.

I: INTRO: Community Panic

FOCUS: depict the despair/panic in the modelers-community at the time of sale (of SketchUp). Give overview of implicated software and platforms.

...I deleted all my [...] models!

...I will also delete all my models!

...It is Over.

...People are starting to Jump!

...I, for one, welcome our new [...] Overlords.

“I wonder that people aren't adding to their models little prophets carrying 'The End is Nigh!' placards.”.

A broken trinity: Software, Platform & Repository

For the sake of overview a brief outline of the different implicated software and platforms and their relations will be sketched out in the following.

II: The crowd

FOCUS: How to harness the crowd into producing a desired output? How is the crowd utilized for production? Main argument revolves around exploitation of users.

REWIND: google acquires Sketchup: reasons

...Already we’ve had hundreds of users create 3D content in SketchUp and place their models in Google Earth. (A free plug-in enables you to do this.) What will that virtual world look like when tens of thousands of users are doing the same?

“Crowdsourcing is outsourcing on steroids” - Jeff Howe (Crowdsourcing - Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business)

game-theory: design systems which generate outcome for the provider but enables 'freedom' for the individual. --> leads to next chapter

Exploitation critique

III: Users as Users

FOCUS: Dependency on software and platform. Google sells Sketchup. This chapter will extend above critique and discuss more technical aspects of rectrictions/regulations

This chapter will discuss how the software and platform is designed to make the crowd perform a desired task, by introducing certain confinements and restrictions to the capabilities of the software/platform and the users 'freedom'.

Bring in more source-material

- regulation/law/lessig:

- Latour: on speedbumps: motivations and limits for the user. confinement of 'movement'.

- ganeesh (own note)

IV: More than a user?

FOCUS: Mutual dependence? Broaden the perspective of the previous chapters.

- Enthusiasm amongst the users

- back to the title of the discussion thread

- Emergence of subscenes, and cultures some more conform than others

The platform allows not only for rigid 'upload' to Google earth but spawns a vivid scene of cultures and subcultures. The users evolves strong emotional bonds towards the platform, and the content they've produced, the provider plays a less 'dominant' role since the production is 'benefiting' the user it self.