The class exists / in our imagination / a gathering across spaces / creating lines of flight / as birds spread their wings / grazing wind drifts. The class is existential / yet moving and dynamic / coating our cortex lightly / as much as our neurons can handle.

With a video version here https://networkedstories.blogspot.com/2021/01/does-class-exist.html

Go to work, earn the cash, pay the bills Is this the norm?

Go to Uni, study in class, lunch with friends Is this the norm?

Travel the world, see new things, attend a crowded concert Is this the norm?

Hibernate inside, video chat with friends, miss the hugs Is this the norm?

What is subversive?

Welcome to PPU. Is anyone put there in Annotation land? I've always had high hopes for using web annotation as a semi secret conversation layer or even a narrative layer, not just for making notes on readings.

We are not sure how much we will use it with the Kean students, but alway am game to try.

https://giphy.com/gifs/movie-film-total-11TU9wJqEtr2ZW

yer it ..

This is a powerful program to know about-- wonder how we might find a connection to the discussions in 2020 in the Networked Narratives class? (and showing how we might use tags across articles)

key concept here ...

If you don't work like a robot, then you get fired by a robot. Is that irony, or what?

Every new technology seems to be invented/advanced nowadays for commercial purposes. Anything else is either secondary or neglected in priority list.

And a little scary if I may add. Some people already have issues with basic Google Map technology, this new AR could take things to a "paranoid" level for those people. I'm not sure about the overall reaction if this gets implemented.

Is this really necessary? I guess, somebody thought so. This is another great example for the notion that social media platforms simply encourage popularity competition among their users.

Do people announce to the public that they're going on a vacation in real life? I wonder...

This is probably one of the major distinctions between online and offline identity theft instances.

This aspect might be the key in understanding the psychology.

It is important to distinguish authenticity and something that looks/feels authentic. In terms of marketing, which would be the priority, I wonder?

This is an important aspect. The digital setting does not require any effort to form a mob. Hence, certain users may be more tempted to participate in it and allow themselves to be influenced by it.

Yet, the internet/social media is being witnessed by a global "audience". If people feel as if all the eyes are on them, what are the chances of them acting on online harassment?

A very interesting observation on the issue.

My assumption would be that they feel as if their actions, regardless of how damaging those may be, are justified by the group around them. Just like how a false statement becomes "the truth" by repetition, if an action is repeated by many people, it becomes "the true" reaction to an issue.

A crucial distinction between a digital and an analog setting that influences the user to become an active participant in a "mob". The anonymity encourages people to behave in a specific way that they would not choose to do so otherwise, indeed.

This is one of the reasons why I do not believe the online world truly represents the reality in which we live in. Only the small portion of people tend to have that luxury of access.

I wonder how long it'll take for someone to invent computers/tablets that could transfer (artificial) smell.

This paragraph alludes to the origin of confusion about the topic. The biggest mistake that people seem to make (me included) is placing digital reality and the real world in juxtaposition, and then attempt to make an argument from there on.

This seems to be an important distinction that many people who argue over the topic tend to ignore (or consciously neglect?).

The line has truly blurred for a lot of people, especially the younger generation who had no chance to experience "a reality" without the digital aspect, namely social media.

In comparison with Facebook, I can see the argument. However, other social media platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, or Reddit allow users to be anonymous. Can we make the same generalization that these people who recreate an alternative identity (hide behind the anonymity) behave exactly the same way offline as they do online?

As I drink my skinny vanilla latte, I can't help but ponder this. The anti-digital-dualists are arguing that online and offline worlds are intermeshed, but I can't decipher what their stance on the argument is. True they're arguing against the definition and idea of digital dualism, but what about the reality of it? @_teachreadwrite what do you think?

Notice Drop Box states up front that it does not sell your info to advertisers and third parties. This line is crucial to your data privacy.

So while this is a free site, they can mine your data including your social media account. All of this in the name of providing you better service.

l would love to see that data.

How is this any different then the government deciding how old one needs to be to smoke or drink?

But the problem with this line of thinking is that Boyd gives adolescents more credit than they deserve. Yes you have responsible teenagers who utilize the parents or adults in their life, but lookout side that tiny circle and you'll see those kids are the exception. They are not the norm. Boyd underestimates adolescents need for freedom, which doesn't consist of asking adults in their lives for guidance.

Ugh. Everywhere I read that it's important to give students the freedom to make their own choices and help them navigate this world. While I agree with that, that the world is changing, it's insane to me that we keep giving these kids more freedom, and yet there is a rise in mental health issues in teenagers, and we wonder why? Come on people. The key word in the text is "minors". I get that at 18 they don't drink a magic potion to become an adult, but they for sure have not at 13! Why should a 13 year old be given the same right as an adult? 18 is the legal age for a reason: overall more maturity and life experience. These kids don't have that and instead of fostering freedom and maturity, we're fostering entitlement and self-righteousness.

Ohhhhhhh here we go. Masooch just looked up sasaeng on Twitter and uhhhh there's some scary stuff on there. I'm talking black market kinda stuff.

Something to make note of. I've heard the term and Masooch mentioned the song to me when I asked about it. From my meager understanding, the term has taken on a watered down meaning nowadays, the term "stan" taking on a verb form too, i.e., "we stan" as I hear Masooch say sometimes.

Uh. So like. @Masooch. Are... are you okay? Not that I care. But like. You and these people are... in the same fandom circles... I... This is nuts.

Too much of anything can be bad for ya, but it can be perfectly fine if You Know What You're Doing. Masooch, take note. Hope you know what you're doing.

Not that I care or anything.

Sounds kind of exactly what Masooch wants to talk about in her project. From what I've seen in the recent research she's conducting, it's a very fine line and real easy to cross.

Sounds like Masooch when she's saving for concerts. And yes this is a callout post.

This is what no one ever understands. Sometimes an intervention is needed by thoughtful, concerned persons in order to ensure a public space is beneficial to all users and truly free for all users. In this context, it's ensuring a kind of equity of social curation occurs rather than a biased curation. While it's fine to have these affinity spaces for things that don't hurt anyone or infringe upon anothers' freedoms, what's developing online is not really an affinity space. It's a toxic waste dump.

Bunch of voyeurs...

Living vicariously rather than wholeheartedly...

They surely do not encourage meaningful dialogue. In fact, they seem to create an anti-dialogue, where meaningful discourse goes to die. We're being conditioned to experience life in "easy-to-like" soundbytes and to become numb to anything that requires more than a simple, evaluative response. Idk about you all but that's scary to me here on my Arganee cafe perch~

I agree, my mentee. There are no simple solutions online or IRL. We must work on alleviating what symptoms we can. Responsible and ethical guidelines should be implemented by people informed off the issues (not old men who think Facebook is the Internet....)

This is an interesting concept not many people may properly consider due to the perceived convenience of these options. Using a reaction gif provided by Twitter's tenor gif feature is so much faster than having to look up the media, edit it, put it through a gif-making site, and caption it. Same for like buttons--they provide the veneer of interaction without providing any actual substance. There's essentially a kind of null-interaction. It's almost less meaningful than if you had not interacted at all.

Additionally, it's of concern that these sights are curating our emotional ranges or, more, standardizing them. It's a kind of large scale conditioning of the masses. And, we're complacent in it for the sake of convenience.

The Internet provides so many opportunities for unique forms of expression to be created and yet most people don't utilize them. Perhaps they don't know about the opportunities? In that case, developing digital literacy should be an ever-increasing priority in an increasingly digitized world. When the pen was first created, not everyone knew it could be responsible for the literature and art it has conceived. That required exploration and practice. The Internet is a similar tool. Exploration and practice need to be given space and priority to be fostered.

Subjective tbh but a valid concern, I suppose. Are we not all creating reality as we experience it, though? (Not to be pedantically philosophical--i.e. a devil's assh*le)

There seem to be real concerns about the misinformation and the misconceptions online spaces perpetuate. Mainly, life is often presented as a problem that can be solved if a certain product is bought or a certain person's advice is followed. That whole model of existence is inherently flawed. At best, this is exploitative and seeks to make a buck off of people's insecurities and anxieties. Not cool.

Fascinating connection. In many ways, social curation seems responsible for the rise of Influencer culture online. More, it seems to be the foundational process upholding the whole precarious enterprise.

Will it collapse if we poke it???

Especially in regards to how it pertains to young people. Developing brains are far more susceptible to being negatively affected by issues that concern subjects of self-worth and self-esteem. Identity is still being formed and so is quite vulnerable to even the slightest jabs. Social curation on a grand scale doesn't really consider emotional well-being of individuals.

Not just "how" but why it is important to understand this process in a digital space. Social curation has always been present but now the audience has been infinitely expanded. There is intersection and dialogue occurring in these spaces on a massive scale. How we communicate and interact with each other is being inherently affected.

Seems innocuous enough...

(I sense a "but" coming though)

It's so interesting to consider this an issue. Are we not always performing our lives? Is the Internet realm not merely an extension of the stage of life?

That said, social curation in a digital context does seem to pose unique problems. Mainly, who is overseeing it? Where is the quality control? There are many dangerous voices that echo in the void. Too many are susceptible to them. Who is protecting the vulnerable? Should king society rule?

Where are the people? All thee world may be a stage and every aspect of life may be performance and self may just be a construct we're hallucinating but that doesn't make our sense of self any less real. How do we value that in a space like the Internet where value is increasing reliant upon profitability and the commodification of self rather than the appreciation or celebration of it? Has the Internet democratized self so much that it ceases to matter?

So, this is an example of a space where social curation is mostly positive and may contribute to positive behaviours outside of its online sphere. Interesting

Example of a positive echo chamber? Was most of the content innocuous in nature though? And, are the users being observed mostly homogeneous?

Objective vs. subjective labeling

There's no censorship here but, also, no oversight. No one is checking to see what information is being curated nor affirming its validity in anyway. Perhaps this lack of supervision is mainly harmless. That said, it seems open to exploitation.

So this is a new form of communication in online spaces. It communicates something not just about culture, but about self too.

Validation

We are constantly looking for ways to discover and present ourselves and online spaces provide new avenues of expression.

Ah, so evaluative online actions can have lasting IRL effects, ones that meaningful affect interactions with and perceptions of the world.

So, it's not the same "high" as having sex but there's still a comparable degree of pleasure and validation derived from "likes". Does this mean people will chase this kind of "high" the same as they do similarly pleasurable things?

This seems to indicate to me that social media can be just as addicting as any of these things. Obsession with any one of these things can lead to a massive addiction.

Emphasis on human

It shouldn't be a game in the first places. People's lives shouldn't be treated like pawns on a chessboard. Though if life is one giant game of chess, let me tell you I don't want to be some mere pawn; I want to be the strongest player on the board: Queen. Wouldn't you?

It always comes down to dough with people on your side. Profit or bust~

We all become part of this false narrative. We are all susceptible to the entrapments being utilized by social media. It's not only affecting how we use the programs but how we view ourselves and our value. That's not a small problem.

This accessibility and inundation is, maybe, part of why so many people feel compelled to perform rather than live their lives. From the moment they wake up to the time they go to bed, people are interacting with some online interface and being exposed to all its entrapments and being fed false image after false image of what "life" should consist of. Some people are using the web for great things, of course, but, unfortunately, the reality is that more eyes usually see the darker aspects of the web.

Social media has taken the place of religion in that it is now one of the easiest ways to control a massive amount of people without the use of force. The amount of unchecked power social media has over its users is concerning on its own. Again, until recently, there have been very few regulations in place to control this power. More, there has been little concerted effort to make developing digital literacy essential to educational programs. I don't need to be a magician to know that's a hella bad mix (and some bad mojo) all around.

This seems to relate to my alchemist's concerns about social media propelling the momentum of one's life rather than it working in tandem to set a pace with the person. More, this information speaks to the ways in which social media is causing us to perform the actions of our lives rather than be present in the moment to appreciate these moments.

Okay @cogdog here is another noise generating tool to try

The question, alchemy wanna bees, as how many Noiszy users would it take to be effective?

This is the message of our field guide selection.

Is this really something to worry about? More so than what we deal with already?

Interesting hypothes(is) we wonder if this is something that can be done collaboratively

These are of course recommended steps, but more in the vein of erecting walls of protection. In a world of entities of life forms, the ones wishing to penetrate walls (hear me oh Orange Haired Moron) will always find cracks, and ways around.

This is sad but like. I get it. I've witnessed masooch talking to her plushies. She smooches the koala on the nose like every day. It's endearing.

But so, so sad.

tag urself this is me and masooch

Masooch and I read this at the same time and she pointed at this and screeched. I think it's important. She said something about a field guide. I don't know what that means.

What was that one movie in this world? iRobot? Didn't that answer this question?

That Will Smith guy was pretty cool.

WHEW. I remember masooch going off about this back in the day. I suppose there's a bit of truth to it. She got so pissed just talking about it she was speechless. What a feat.

Yes! Another wonderful passage and an enlightening article to read!

I do like that there's a positive side to this! I'm all about the positive. There's always a silver lining to everything and I think it's a good thing that we know about both ends of the spectrum (light and dark) and not just one.

That's an interesting idea.

This is very true. How can we get into the practice of Zen and Mindfulness? How can reverse a habit we've been doing for so long while everyone around us is still doing it? Such as picking up my phone and scrolling through social media like a zombie.

Wow! That's a long time

I've had the same issue! Where I delete the app but then I go right to the browser to scroll just to check those darn notifications.

That is a perfect word to describe today's technology! Phones may be smaller but there is so much going on!

That is a beautiful passage.

You're very welcome ^.^

It's interesting that it is our ability to change and our predilection to avoid stagnation that so often defines us. Identity is often discussed in concrete terms--where can you locate it? What groups do you align yourself with? But, identity is not a singular, cohesive entity. We are not. Rather we are this confluence of so many factors beyond pinpointing. (I'm reminded of Dr. Lector's "Nothing happened to me. I happened. You can't reduce me to a set of influences.") We happened. Whether online or in our skin, we are going to constantly grow and evolve.

In some ways, I don't fully understand the meaning here. But, I do believe that the onset of the digital age, particularly of the Internet, has made it possible to be so many more things beneath our skin than our skin would have other believe. We truly contain multitudes, perhaps now more than ever. (Will we burst?)

Interesting thought to consider in light of such nefarious online practices such as catfishing and identity theft. (Who are the modern-day skinwalkers?)

Is it not? Isn't the whole world a stage and us, merely players?

It's a very visual way to portray/convey the many layers we all assume in the construction of identity. I think this work comes across as a little eerie (in concept) because it is making the typically unseen seen. V is not only bared open but dismantled and remade. It's unsettling (but so fascinating).

Sounds like a re-emergence of happenings, just re-envisioned in a digital space

I usually com across memes on social media. I even started using them in my messages because it spices up the conversation without actually using words.

Isn't this just what we deem common courtesy? Rules of engagement we are taught at a young age? Socialization of young children requires them to understand that they can't always just have what they want and this stretches out to adulthood.

I like this "veneer of consensus". As a manager, I often get the veneer from employees.

So when I want someone to do something I frame it in a certain way in order to make them do it.

Don't we all do that? Give people that we just meet the benefit of the doubt? How can we "know" anyone then? We all live with inference!

Interesting that he uses this quote to begin his monograph as physical masks have been linked to hooliganism. Young boys and men are more likely to wear a mask at Halloween than girls and most of their costumes are designed that way. I think this article that looks at the power of masks, both with in a theatre context and online context is useful. The idea that a mask can transform the wearer into something else, potentially violent, also happens online is frightening. https://aeon.co/essays/how-masks-explain-the-psychology-behind-online-harassment

All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages." As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII Very Shakespearean approach to this question. I am not sure if I like it. So every one is playing a part? What, then, is real? This does tie into the fakery of the internet though but without the physical presence.

Interesting that he chose a physically restrained place with fixed roles (foreman, labourer, worker, janitor, assembly worker, mechanic, electrician) where people have assumed a work role with a fixed identity. Easier to judge and find a pattern?

First impressions, physical dress, uniform, already existing class assumptions. This is within a fixed setting.

We ourselves are fake. I feel the same way when I have to prove who I am. its really annoying when you have to keep clicking on the items to prove you are not a robot.

And this is the issue. It owns my community. I don't have a huge number of Facebook friends and I have been whittling it down hard recently as I realised how depressing all the political crap from the US really is. I use it to connect with my immediate family on Messenger. But then they've got that pixel thing were you're tracked all the time.

And that is just so unsettling! I didn't use any Facebook sites to shop for my car, I looked it up on google - but then it was on Facebook!

"The uptime of a single company." Internet did start that way "decentralized" but I was using Google as a search engine in 1999 and you could see it take off as the search engine of choice. https://bit.ly/2GPPubQ is a link to a great article on the history of the internet.

And this is super scary. I use Google every day. I use its translation service while I am living in Europe. And you can't cut out of your life- unless you give up the tool.

As mentioned in last week's discussion as part of Networked Narratives by Anne Marie Scott from the University of Edinburgh only wealthy people will be able to afford privacy.

More surveillance!

What a patriarchal approach

So there is not one performance of self; there are many performances of self, playing out in tandem with others.

Only concerned with the presentation of self and not with self itself as we may define it internally. Goffman's definition of self relies upon the reception of another interactant.

Are we then more defined by what bends or breaks our barriers than the barriers themselves?

Also known as "saving someone else's face" (cause you're not an assh*le).

That's the longest-winded way to say, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" I've ever read~

You must follow-through, it seems or else the whole charade falls through.

Self, then, lies not only in one individual; an interaction seems to be required an and impression made in order for a conception of self to exist. At least, according to Goffman.

I'm not sure I wholly agree with his statement but I do believe it is important to consider. To me, I believe different environments enhance aspects of ourselves already present. I don't believe these sites are fully responsible for our own actions. That said, I agree, in some ways, that we are being incredibly manipulated into being the worst versions of ourselves in online spaces. It's more profitable to bring out the worst in us than the best--at least, that's what Big Business seems to believe. I find it hard to believe, though, that we can be all that much more fake online than in-person--if you really think about it. We are always modulating ourselves and our reactions to accommodate those around us. We are constantly being told not to be ourselves through social, academic, professional, etc. conditioning. Does anybody really know who they are? Do you? I just don't think it's apt or fair to say that we are being anymore fake online when there's no proof we were ever being real before.

This is a very important statement. People are basically recreating themselves within this digital world in the image of what they wish to be but unfortunately cannot be in the real world. We used to fear anonymity. It's actually the public deception which we should be afraid of the most.

I've tried in vain to find an article I read in the recent past about how only a small percentage of educational technology products are effective in improving student achievement. I also enjoyed this article/chart, which illustrates how technology is a TOOL, not the method: https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students

I almost want to liken the concepts of "alternative facts" and "post-truth" to a kind of modern day alchemical process--in this case, the transmutation of words and semantics but also of reality and fact itself.

Ah. I'm sure the Church loved this ^.^

Anyway, this definitely seems to indicate that we have always desired to transcend beyond ourselves.This kind of "escapism" is not new. Now, we may use digital means to attempt transcendence but is that really any different than alchemical intervention? Both are intended to be these conduits through which we become something more.

This is a fave text the show "Ancient Aliens" likes to reference as evidence that ancient alien travelers visited earth long ago.... Regardless of the validity of those statements >.> it sounds like an epic tale. Would love to know more about its content and significance.

I dunno about actual practices but I know that there are references to alchemy all over the place in modern entertainment and media. I went into some of the references I was familiar with in my first post from the first time I took NetNarr. Take a peek if you like: https://owlsarepeopletoo.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/that-stalker-alchemy/

Ancient Greece and European history is fascinating but I have a hard time accepting some facts.

Watching this reminded me of a horror game I used to watch playthroughs of back in the day. Aqua Regia was used as a component to create acid at one point in the game. Thinking about it now, there were a lot of alchemy elements to that game... Go google Amnesia: The Dark Descent for a good time (and jumpscares lol)

Plain and simple...alchemists were historians and scientists!

The Star of Antimony...interesting!

This was vey informative. I had never known what Alchemists did or what they were interested in. I only knew the word from my high school drama club called, "The Alchemists". I never knew there was a whole language behind science that included mystery and even art (as in drawings).

This was my question that I had last week! I'm glad it's being answered.

Well that is certainly an interesting way of spelling that word. I'm intrigued.

I'm Paul Bond, a librarian in the frozen wastelands of central New York. I'm here because I don't know what I'm doing and I don't know what this is about, but it looks interesting.

Alchemy to me is the attempt to transform matter, to turn lead into gold. It's wishful thinking, perhaps a failure from the start, but in trying things we can learn things.

What then would be digital alchemy? A lot of gold, literal and figurative, has been spun out of the web. Some of the more profitable experiments may not be the best. But we can learn from that.

What's your take on his work?

How has the word and term "Alchemy" been misused over the years? Anything come to mind?

Whoah. Whatever your spiritual leanings (if any), this is an interesting query, right? I imagine the debates sparked by this must have been fierce.

Interesting spelling and word ...

I wonder if this is due to the need to belief in the unknown -- which is always something that has stirred the creative spirit in a lot of people.

Hi John I am curious about how one leaps from history of science into digital learning -- I can see a path but wonder about you found it (or maybe, how you created that path).

Digital alchemy seems to be the profound mixing of elements until something extraordinary is produced that could not be produced in the non-digital world. That is some of my experience in Network Narratives.

Foxes, foxes and more foxes. I have been following your posts on Google plus (wave goodbye to that) for years and it's always foxes.

Where do I find step two?

Performing literature rather than reading it? Incorporating the performance of interacting with literature in a way that allows it to be more "seen", making the hidden mechanics observable?

Readers decide when to end a story rather than a story providing a definite ending--closure or making peace with a lack thereof of closer is determined by/resides in the reader. So, is a conclusion really a part of a literary work or not?

Works like this really bring questions of authorship to the forefront--who is writing this work? Sure, you can design all of a work's possible permutations but if a reader does not engage with the work and generate these permutations, does the story exist?

Removing a work from its digital context removes its meaning or, at least, a large chunk of its meaning.

Dada photomontage?

Hannah Hoch's "Cut with a Kitchen Knife"

What decides meaning--the work or your experience of the work? Is there any meaning inherent in a work or is it all determined by the reader?

Or, do readers simply explore works, like detectives?

Rather than being passive observes to a story as it unravels, readers of elit participate in the creation of the story.

Navigation rather than interpretation itself assists in guiding the discerning of meaning

Any particular outcome of a Complex Adaptive System is impossible to predict. This is one reason why organizational change is so hard.

Sir Tim's original website is still available at CERN.

Divide and rule works in every sector of society, but education is the sector charged with reproducing the social order.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." - Frederick Douglass

http://www.blackpast.org/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress

I worked for twenty years in Santa Clara, California, beside people from around the world. Some bosses were conservative, some liberal, some libertarian. Some workers were conservative, some liberal, some libertarian and some were anarchist freaks like me. After five years in a four school community college district and three years attending conferences and institutes, I haven't experienced much intellectual diversity. Just lots of liberal identity groups fighting over state, corporate and non-profit resources. My education is self financed by the shared profits from the glass shops in Santa Clara where I did the most technologically advanced glassblowing in history. What does that make me? https://www.wired.com/2016/04/heads-jesse-jarnow-excerpt/

Vulture Capitalists are the segment of the NeoLiberal project that are using the technology developed in "The Valley of Hearts Delight" to destroy democracy and hollow out all financial institutions. Attributing their behaviour to "Silicon Valley" disappears the true entrepreneurs (and the military industrial complex and the human potential movement) and the workers that created the technology, the majority of whom were Hispanic and Asian women.

As are every institution in America; including Colleges and Universities.

Hi Chris

One good anecdote deserves another. ;-)

"Ben Gross is a legendary civil rights and union activist in San Jose, California and the surrounding Silicon Valley.<br> ... In 1948, Gross left Arkansas for the first time when he was inducted into the U.S. Army. After his discharge a year later, he moved to Richmond, California, and went to work for the Ford Motor Company. In this capacity, he joined UAW Local 560 and immediately became active in union politics. In 1950 he became the first African American elected to Local 560's bargaining committee. In that capacity he was responsible for handling grievances at Ford’s Richmond plant. Gross’s success in this position led to UAW President, Walter Reuther appointing him as Local 560’s housing committee chairman in 1954. Gross was responsible for making sure that Local 560 workers—regardless of race—had comfortable and affordable housing when Ford relocated its plant from Richmond to Milpitas (near San Jose) in 1955. To ensure that goal, Gross and other union leaders created the Sunnyhills cooperative development, the first planned interracial community in America sponsored by a labor union. By the 1950s Gross extended his union activism into the civic arena. In 1961 Gross, with UAW backing, became the first black city councilman in Milpitas. His election received national attention when he was profiled in Look and Life magazines. Then in 1966 Gross was elected mayor and reelected again in 1968. At the time he was the only black mayor of a predominately white town in California."

Sources: Herbert G Ruffin II, Uninvited Neighbors: Black Life and the Racial Quest for Freedom in the Santa Clara Valley, 1777-1968 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2007); and “Sunnyhills and the Life of Ben Gross” (Unpublished interview conducted on December 11, 2008 at UAW headquarters, Detroit, MI); Robert O. Self, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003); Sunnyhills United Methodist Church, Sunnyhills United Methodist Church: A History, 1957-1982 (URL: http://www.gbgm-umc.org/sunnyhills/history.htm).

from http://www.blackpast.org/aaw/ben-gross-1921

From local newspaper's timeline:

1953 - Ford Motor Co. announces plans for a new 160-acre, $50 million-dollar assembly plant employing 4,000 in unincorporated Milpitas. The plant opens in 1955 and will produce such cars as the ill-fated Edsel, the popular Mustang, the subcompacts such as the Pinto, Comet, Falcon and Escort, and pickups. The factory closes in 1983 after producing 4.7 million vehicles.

1954 - In an effort to stave off annexation by San Jose, the community votes to incorporate Jan. 26, 1954.

Construction of four new subdivisions begins: Sunnyhills, Milford Village, Sylvan Gardens and Milpitas Manor. To accommodate the housing needs of Ford’s multiracial workforce, Sunnyhills becomes a model of residential development.

New business construction boom on Main Street: bank, appliance store, medical center and restaurant.

1961 - San Jose’s efforts to incorporate Milpitas is soundly defeated at the polls by a vote of 1,571 to 395. The 1776 Minutemen symbol adopted by the anti-incorporation movement will become the city seal.

1962 - The community’s early ethnic and racial diversity will be reflected in the election of public officials. Milpitas elects Ben Gross, one of the first African-American city council members in the county. Gross will also serve as mayor.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/06/milpitas-a-look-back/

Agreed. The last scene was what really stuck and, to me, it's because of how dissonant our world is with the one presented by "Nosedive." In our world, we still get these private moments where we can yell "Fuck this" all we want. We still value those moments. Our entire lives are not as pervasively performative as in this world. More than all that though, I think we can all relate to how utterly fucking exhausting and stressful social media can be. We need moments where we can vent like Lacie did at the end of the episode.

This artifice was particularly powerful, in my opinion. It wasn't just about how we appeared via social media bu how we were perceived IRL that mattered and could be translated to power. One the aims of social media was to connect people and allow for a wider array of interactions with individuals and with communities. But, here, social media becomes a tool to suppress and oppress genuine interactions amongst people.

I think you can already see traces of this--with the rise of "influencers", which are typically people who promote products on social media and that's it. In the beauty & cosmetics world, influencers have become major players in marketing and in the popularity of certain brands, for instance.

That one's social media presence/score could dictate one's access to goods and services "IRL" is what I found to be most scary about this entire premise. Right now, this aspect of social media can affect the lives of celebrities but it hasn't spilled over into the lives of everyday citizens. Yet. **Edit: You see traces of it though. To access some features for things, you need the app and most of these apps have ranking systems now.

Social media and clout on it essentially becomes the new currency of this society.

This crow called to me; I had to zoom in too much, but I loved the lines and spaces within the rule of thirds. https://flic.kr/p/245A9sn

I loved the light dancing on the water, a balance of the sky in the distance. I had to do some cloud waiting and several attempts before I caught the light close to me and some farther down river. https://flic.kr/p/FWy669

I tried to get close to the orange leaf barely hanging on to the branch, dangling in the twigs and sky. https://flic.kr/p/FWy3gb

The crux of the issue, I think~

I like the concept of parsing data across multiple devices. Where crypto-currency gets involved, though, is where I get concerned. I don't know a lot about crypto-currency but I know the markets for it can fluctuate drastically and that is not comforting or encouraging?? One of those. I don't want my internet to crash into a thousand pieces because overnight, Safecoin's value plummeted, you know? (Is that how that works??? Am I totally off???)

It almost seems counter-intuitive to think of digital art as temporary. Once something's on the internet, it lives forever, right? I was tripped up by this idea but then I remembered what I heart a tattoo artist say (on one of the many tattoo art shows out there--can't remember which) in response to someone who rejected tattoos on the basis that they're permanent: "Tattoos are the least permanent kind of art. We're all going to die." I got so caught up in thinking of the art itself that I forgot about its canvas--human skin. A material that will not stand the test of time. I think this is applicable to the idea that digital art is temporary. At least, as temporary as a tattoo. It will leave its mark in a moment but that moment will not last. It almost makes me appreciate the medium more, if that makes sense?

Reusing materials is better than a single use (throwaway) but creating your own images gives you a way to express uniquely personal ideas and feelings.

Each unit is useful but each unit is different. Each unit has the same function but each unit effects the viewer in a different way.

I was taught this by a pro photographer when shooting a subject, even when the background is not focussed, it helps to consider framing it so there is a dark, non distracting background. It takes some practice to think of both the subject and how what behind them will affect an image.

In this one, I wanted the dying sunflower frames against the lighter blue sky, it would have been lost, or even created a sense of distraction, with the darker trees behind it.

Woah, now this is scary....

Children shouldn't be introduced to technology so early in their life. I know its hard to not introduce it to them but there has to be a certain age and time involved.

I'm starting to think how my life use to be without being able to just tap a song and it will play. Who remembers LimeWire!?

Well there goes something I never knew! Thanks! #sos

I always felt that way, but at the same time, it has in so many ways! in which way should we go with this!! lol

Is the self I am in my digital life/in my digital spaces not me? Not a part of me?

My work self and my student self and my home self do not behave or operate necessarily in the same ways but I would never consider any one separate from myself, any one "better". That's evaluative and, ultimately, a subjective opinion.

We could re-imagine the financial component that is driving all of social media? Incentivize social media platforms maybe to tweak their algorithms so that more truthful or factual info is being spread? (I think that's a contributing factor to this whole "lowering IQ" debate tbh) If you want some real change, most often you've got to hit someone in their wallet.

Causation does not equal correlation last time I checked~

Hello agenda~

(Studies also show that smoking cannabis increases creativity and innovation. Also, it has many beneficial health applications; it can be used for the treatment of seizures and for anxiety disorders as well as for pain. We going to look at anything complexly in this article??? Asking for a friend >.>)

I guess something else that bothers me about this whole debate is that the responsibility is placed solely on the consumers and hardly at all on the creators or designers of these devices and algorithms. But, if they never existed in the first place, what would the problem be? I think it's irresponsible to peddle messages like the one expressed in this article without looking at the source and saying, "Hey, this isn't working out well. You need to come up with something better." That's human innovation, right? Of course, because of Big Business's interests, the likelihood of any meaningful change to the current social media construct is slim to none.

Absolutely? I'd have liked if more research were provided here to support this lone professor's claim--that there is a correlation in regards to symptoms between people with ADD and people who use smartphones. Dealing in absolutes here really closes off discussion so I'm hesitant to accept this viewpoint as the reality of this situation. It's very one-sided thus far.

So clever~

This sounds like a generalization to me. Again, many people use these platforms not just for self-affirmation but for, you know, social purposes--to connect with people they otherwise wouldn't be able to. This sounds purposefully provocative, as if it wants to play on the insecurities it just pointed out, forcing me to engage in an introspection of its own design. Sounds eerily similar to clickbait~

I'll admit, this sounds very "super-villainy." I expected the corporate sphere to be more savvy when discussing exploitation of the masses for profit tbh~

Dramatic

This, I have a major problem with. I highly recommend watching this video on the topic created by one of my fave educational Youtubers. I've recommended it often but I think it's great at underlining the ethical issues with these algorithms. More, it highlights how these algorithms affect the population, how they divide us instead of provide truth as we had hoped a platform like the internet would (you know, making info and so facts easily accessible).

Again, I don't disagree with ideas like these--giving yourself time to be in a moment with yourself for yourself is very important, especially to mental health. When social media is being used as a a distraction from having to be with the self, then I have a problem with it because it is having a noticeably negative impact. I don't like messages like these being used aggressively and obnoxiously, though, as if to guilt people. Maybe I'm no my phone not talking to you because you're, quite frankly, annoying and unpleasant. Ever thought of that insert nosy relative/etc? I'm just saying maybe the problem isn't always the device so much as it is the company or the environment.

This is perhaps what I am most interested in: how are we identifying what behaviors are being influenced by increased social media usage? Personally, I think the uptick in videos showing inappropriate behavior being uploaded to these platforms is indicative of impact of social media--it's made us more performative and has sold us this idea that privacy is over-rated, perhaps non-valuable. But, that seems to be a different viewpoint than that expressed in this article. This article seems more concerned with the increase in antisocial behavior it associates with increased social media usage than with the collective conscious and its relationship to digital spaces. If that sounds critical, it is. I'll keep reading but typically these kinds of articles focus too heavily on the "media" aspect and not enough on the "social" benefits these applications allow for which, to me, is an egregious oversight but whatever~

While watching episode 1 I was just in awe how it knew my location and how this documentary isn't just a video but he asks us to participate to have a better knowledge in what Brett is trying to teach the online community. Off to see episode 2 and 3!

I've never thought of this word in terms of a digital context until recently. But, it really all comes down to consent. Some might argue just using the internet's service is consent to tracking cookies. Others may say visiting a site is you consenting to their tracking software. And others still may say there is no consent until a request has been made and an informed answer provided.

God forbid~

Horrifying. Absolutely horrifying. This is a problem. Forget that social media addiction nonsense. That this is allowed to happen is creating major social crises. People get trapped in echo chambers--of third-party servers' designs and there are no repercussions for this. No ethical ramifications. Where is the responsibility here? Consumer privacy is not only being neglected, it is being exploited for financial and, I would argue as of late, political gain. Where is the regulation? The oversight?

See, this is a little scary. It's one thing to be another # in a mass of numbers but an whole different matter entirely for a corporation to have access to and be able to store such personal information without any sworn responsibility to use it ethically or to protect it--how many data links can you name? Now, compare that to how many prosecutions you can name? Maybe a corporation has to pay a fine if it has a leak but little more. We're all just $$$$, commodities to trade and sell.

Ah, the ol' Trojan horse play--in this case, monitoring disguised as courtesy.

I think the answer is, the movement is still in its infancy stage, right?

And to us, those who make digital art. How do we curate it? Save it? Make sure the platforms we build with don't disappear and take our art with it? Still figuring this out ... or trying to.

This sentence still exists! Cool. And you can add to it, still. Coolx2.

Overview: https://whitney.org/Exhibitions/Artport/DouglasDavis

The Sentence: http://artport.whitney.org/collection/DouglasDavis/live/Sentence/sentence1.html

How to add to it: Description

"The Sentence has no end. Sometimes I think it had no beginning. Now I salute its authors, which means all of us. You have made a wild, precious, awful, delicious, lovable, tragic, vulgar, fearsome, divine thing." —Douglas Davis, 2000