Yeah, I think you're spot on about Boyd's paper, it's too utopian. I'm working on a research project right now for a class that references her stuff. I don't think she's being quite critical enough, but that paper is really well researched and it is for a pretty lay audience.
March 21, 2006 10:29 PM
Perhaps, the more youth culture exists (or co-exists) on the network the more trackable it will be giving corporattion precisely the level of "cool hunting" look ahead you're discussing.
Of course, on the other hand, the possession of vast databases doesn't automatically mean the owner will intelligently parse the data. There may yet still be unseen currents, hiding in plain sight.
Dwayne M. |
March 22, 2006 03:17 PM
I hear what you're saying. I hear what danah boyd is saying. Somewhere between the corporate tectonics and the bottom-up circulation/production of culture 2.0 is likely a more heterogenous geometry containing clouds that vector the dynamics of culture between and amongst all those (pretty much everyone who is a social being) who fab their social lives. Clusters of culture rather than hierarchies. Business practices are only one form of social practice, and no one practice can possibly determine another with such authority and certainty that either the bottom-up or the top-down hierarchical architecture holds up to strenuous argument.
In boyd's defense, there are important political (perhaps ethical) reasons to approach an explication of MySpace from the angle she does, and my guess is that it has as much to do with not giving cred to the hierarchical top-down architecture. That approach does not lead to constructive responses and empowering imaginaries for making more habitable online social spaces.
March 26, 2006 07:55 PM
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)