Program or Be Programmed: Chapters 1-5 Response
In Program or Be Programmed, author Douglas Rushkoff breaks away from the argument of whether or not the internet is good or bad for us, but rather he discusses how we should interact with this technology; should we direct technology, or do we allow ourselves to be programmed by it and those who have mastered it? In presenting the reader with the inherent biases of computers and other digital technologies, Rushkoff argues that we program our technology rather than become programmed by it.
In the first five chapters, Rushkoff explores the following biases of digital technology: time, place, choice, complexity, and scale. Out of all of these inherent biases, I found the implications of time and scale (or abstraction) to be the most interesting. In regards to time, I found the idea of digital technologies existing outside of time to be a jarring idea. In interacting with the technology that was available when I was growing up and today, computers and phones always had a feeling of immediacy and celerity; instant messaging was already an established norm and online computer games were social and widespread. However, in reading about the culture of early computer use, I can clearly see the singular event that checking messages or doing research manifested itself as. My first train of thought is to think of the evolution of computers from asynchronous to synchronous, but Rushkoff argues that this is not the case; instead, the increasing stimulus of alerts and notifications gives us the illusion of immediacy. While I understand where Rushkoff is coming from here, I can't help but think about some of the time-sensitive processes that I use my technology for like confirming appointments and turning in projects. Does the fact that a lot of us use computers and phones for time-sensitive manners refute the idea of digital technology being completely outside of time?
In the first five chapters, Rushkoff explores the following biases of digital technology: time, place, choice, complexity, and scale. Out of all of these inherent biases, I found the implications of time and scale (or abstraction) to be the most interesting. In regards to time, I found the idea of digital technologies existing outside of time to be a jarring idea. In interacting with the technology that was available when I was growing up and today, computers and phones always had a feeling of immediacy and celerity; instant messaging was already an established norm and online computer games were social and widespread. However, in reading about the culture of early computer use, I can clearly see the singular event that checking messages or doing research manifested itself as. My first train of thought is to think of the evolution of computers from asynchronous to synchronous, but Rushkoff argues that this is not the case; instead, the increasing stimulus of alerts and notifications gives us the illusion of immediacy. While I understand where Rushkoff is coming from here, I can't help but think about some of the time-sensitive processes that I use my technology for like confirming appointments and turning in projects. Does the fact that a lot of us use computers and phones for time-sensitive manners refute the idea of digital technology being completely outside of time?
Rushkoff, Douglas, and Leland Purvis. Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age. Soft Skull Press, 2011.
I believe that technology has both good and bad advantages towards it, also you had good points towards your argument.
ReplyDelete