Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Adbusters: DATAcide, The Total Annihilation of Life as We Know
agent humble on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:44:49 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Adbusters: DATAcide, The Total Annihilation of Life as We Know It

This article appeared in issue #115, now available in our Blueprint for
a New World Series Box Set:


"So tell me, why did you leave your last job?" he asks.

The first thing I remember about the internet was the noise. That
screeching howl of static blips signifying that you were, at last,
online. I first heard it in the summer of '93. We were huddled around my
friend's brand new Macintosh, palms sweaty, one of us on lookout for his
mom, the others transfixed as our Webcrawler search bore fruit. An image
came chugging down, inch by inch. You could hear the modem wince as it
loaded, and like a hammer banging out raw pixels from the darkness
beyond the screen, a grainy, low-res jpeg came into view. It was a woman
and a horse.

Since then, I've had a complicated relationship with the internet. We
all have. The noise is gone now, and its reach has grown from a network
of isolated weirdos into a silent and invisible membrane that connects
everything we do and say.

"I needed a bigger challenge," I say. This is a lie.

The brewpub we're in has freshly painted white walls and a polished
concrete floor, 20 ft ceilings and dangling lightbulbs. It could double
as a minimalist porn set, or perhaps a rendition chamber. Concrete is
easy to clean. The table we're at is long and communal. Whenever
someone's smartphone vibrates we all feel it through the wood, and we're
feeling it every second minute -- a look of misery slicing across my face
when I realize it's not mine.

"Tell me about your ideal process," the guy sitting down the table from
us says. My eyes strain sideways. He looks to be about thirty; we all
do. Like a young Jeff Bezos, his skin is the color of fresh milk. He's
dressed like a Stasi agent trying to blend in at a disco. Textbook
Zuckercore: a collared blue-green plaid shirt unbuttoned with a subdued
grey-on-grey graphic tee, blue jeans and sneakers. Functional sneakers.
Tech sneakers. This is a tech bar. Frequented by tech people who do tech
things. The park down the street is now a tech park. That's where the
tech types gather to broadcast their whimsy and play inclusive
non-sports like Quidditch, which, I'm told, is something actual people
actually do. It's a nerd paradise where the only problems that exist are
the ones that you're inspired to solve. And I want in on it, because I
want to believe.

"I'm a big fan of social," I blurt out as an aside. He replies with a
calm and ministerial nod. Nobody says "social media" anymore, it's just
"social" now.

My atoms are sitting here drinking a beer, being interviewed for a
position at a firm that specializes in online brand management systems.
Which is a euphemism for a human centipede of marketers selling
marketing to marketers for marketing. The firm is worth a billion
dollars. You've never heard of it. It's the type of place where they
force you to play ping-pong if you come in looking depressed. Meet the
new boss, same as the old boss, except this one is very concerned that
you see him as a positive force in the universe.

I'm here, bringing the cold beer to my dry lips and bobbing my head in
my best impersonation of someone who doesn't feel ill when he hears the
words "key metrics," "familiarity," "control groups" and "variant
groups." It's the dawn of the new creative economy, and I can dig it.
I'm here, but I'm also spread across the internet in a series of
containers. I'm in Facebook, I'm in Instagram, I'm in Google, I'm in
Twitter and a thousand other places I never knew existed. Depending how
my body is disposed of, it will either become dirt or atmosphere. But
the digital atoms will live forever, or at least until civilization is
incinerated by whatever means we choose to off ourselves.

"What about this position interests you"? he asks.

When the TechCrunchers preach the gospel of disruption, it's from an
industrial perspective that sees life on Earth as a series of business
models to be upended. Disrupt or die is the motto, but they never
mention the disruptees -- the travel agents, the cab drivers, the
bellhops. The journalists. The meat in the box before the box is crushed
by the anvil of innovation.

"People have ideas about things but it's a bunch of things. Sign up flow
for example, high level things, but sometimes I think -- let's table this
for now and put together some idea maps. I feel so empowered because
we're aligned," someone else says. I look around but can't trace the source.

It's hard to focus on his questions when all the conversations occurring
parallel to ours combine in a cacophony of sameness, as if we're all
Tedtalking a mantra of ancient buzzwords: Engagement. Intuitive.
Connection. User base. Revolutionary. It's like coke talk gone sour, not
words that are meant to say things, but stale semiotics that signify you
belong. This is the the new language of business. This is where Wall
Street goes to find itself.

"I traded in my suit for khakis and sunglasses," one of them says. But
he's wearing neither. "That's the best decision you've ever made bro,"
his colleague replies.

These are the most boring people on the planet. And it's their world
now, we're just supplying the data for it. The game is simple: dump
venture capital into a concept, get the eyeballs, take the data and
profit. But the implications of this crude scheme are profound. Beyond
all the hype, something weird is happening.

I can't eat without instagramming my food. I can't shit without playing
Candy Crush. I can't even remember who half the people are on my
Facebook feed, but I'll still mindlessly scroll through their tedious
status updates and wince at their tacky wedding photos. Out of these
aimless swipes, clicks and likes, a new world is being born. A world
where everything we do, no matter how inane, is tracked, recorded,
sorted and analyzed. Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer has said the whole process
is "like watching the planet develop a nervous system." And through this
system, every human action has become a potential source of profit for
our data lords, a signal for them to identify and exploit.

"We are about to enter a world that is half digital and half physical,
and without properly noticing, we've become half bits and half atoms.
These bits are now an integral part of our identity, and we don't own
them," says Hannes Grassegger.

Grassegger is a German economics journalist who was raised in front of
his mom's Macintosh, and later, on a Commodore 64 he got for his sixth
birthday. He recently wrote "Das Kapital bin ich" (I am Capital), a book
that has been criticized by the European left for being too capitalist,
and by the right for being the communist manifesto of the digital era.
In it he tries to answer a deceptively simple question: if our data is
the oil of the 21st century, then why aren't we all sheikhs?

"We've all been sharing. But the smart ones have been collecting " and
they've packed us into their clouds," he says. "Privacy. Transparency.
Surveillance. Security gap. I don't want to hear about it. These are
sloppy downplayings of a radical new condition: We don't own ourselves
any more. We are digital serfs."

Like Grassegger, and like everybody else, I was lured into this radical
new condition with the feel-good promises of connection, friendship and
self-expression. Apps, sites and services that allowed us to share what
we loved, and do what we wanted. For Grassegger, these platforms were
merely fresh lots ready to be ploughed, and in turn they kept the
harvest: our feelings, thoughts, experiences and emotions, encoded in
letters and numbers. Now they're putting it all to work, exploiting
these assets with algorithms and sentiment analysis, and our virtual
souls are toiling even while we sleep.

His solution to this dilemma is practical and pragmatic, siding with a
lesser evil of establishing a personalized free data market, which would
allow us to exploit our information before others do it for us, arguing
that "We must carry into the new space those rights and freedoms we eked
out in the physical world centuries ago. The ownership over ourselves
and the freedom to employ this property for our own benefit. Only this
will help us leave behind our self-imposed digital immaturity."


A waitress lets a pint glass slip from her hand and shatter on the
floor, but no one bothers to look over; they're too engaged. Then I
notice something eerie about the vibe in this place. There's no
sneering, no sarcasm, and no self-deprecation. Everyone is just sort of
floating along in an earnest tranquility. As if each anecdote about
"that cool loft I found on Airbnb" contained some deep spiritual
significance beyond my grasp.

My interrogator goes for a piss and I load up Facebook in the interim,
hoping to find a shard of inspiration in my feed that will provide a
topical talking point. Instead I find a listicle. A curiosity gap
headline. An ad. A solicitation. Another ad. Another listicle. Oh dear,
someone has lost their phone. And finally, an ad in the form of a
listicle. Or is it a listicle in the form of an ad?

We were told to surf the web, but in the end, the web serf'd us. Yet
there's a worse fate than digital serfdom, as Snowden's ongoing NSA
revelations suggest. This isn't simply about the commodification of all
human kinesis, it's the psychological colonialism that makes the
commodification possible.

The nature of this bad trip was hinted at in June when we learned that
Facebook manipulated the emotional states of nearly 700,000 of its
users. Half of those chosen for the study were fed positivity, the
others, despair. "The results show emotional contagion," the Facebook
scientists told us, meaning that they had discovered that alternating
between positive and negative stimulus does indeed affect our behaviour.
Or perhaps rediscovered. There's a precedent for this. We've been here

Burrhus Frederic Skinner, known simply as B.F. to his BFFs, is best
known as the psychologist with the painfully large forehead who tried to
convince the world that free will was an illusion. But he wasn't always
so dire. He was once a young man with hopes and dreams who wrote poems
and sonnets and wanted to become a stream-of-consciousness novelist like
his idol, Marcel Proust. He failed miserably and it led him to conclude
that he wasn't capable of writing anything of interest because he had
nothing to say. Frustrated and bitter, he resolved that literature was
irrelevant and it should be destroyed, and that psychology was the true
art form of the 20th century. So he went to Harvard and developed the
concept of operant conditioning by putting a rat in a cage and
manipulating its behaviour by alternating positive and negative
stimulus. Now we're the rats in the cage, only we don't know where the
cage ends and where it begins.

"What's your five year vision for social"? he asks.

There's a right way and a wrong way to answer this question. The wrong
way is to be critical and cast scepticism on the internet's role in our
lives. For instance, you could draw a parallel between Facebook's
probing of emotional contagion and the Pentagon's ongoing research into
how to quash dissent and manage social unrest. Or you could mention how
the Internet of Things will inevitably consolidate corporate power over
our personal liberty unless we implement strict regulations on what part
of ourselves can and cannot be quantified. But if you did that, you'd
upset the prevailing good vibes and come off like a sickly paranoiac in
desperate need of some likes.

The right way is to turn off, buy in and cash out. Reinforce the grand
narrative and talk about how social is going to bring people together,
not just online, but in the real world. How it will augment our
interactions and make us more open. How in five years you'll be able to
meet your true love through an algorithm that correlates your iTunes
activity to your medical history and how that algorithm will be worth a
billion fucking dollars. And it's through that magical cloud of
squandered human potential that Skinner emerges once again and starts
poking his finger into your brain.

After establishing himself as a household name, Skinner was finally able
to live out his dream of writing a novel. That novel was Walden Two, a
story about a utopian commune where people live a creative and
harmonious life in accordance to the principles of radical behaviourism.
In contrast to 1984 and Brave New World, it was meant to be a positive
portrayal of a technologically-enabled utopian ideal. In it he writes,
"The majority of people don't want to plan. They want to be free of the
responsibility of planning. What they ask for is merely some assurance
that they will be decently provided for. The rest is a day-to-day
enjoyment of life."

In the late 60s, Walden Two directly inspired a series of attempts to
create real world versions of the fictional community it described.
These were just a few of the thousands of communes that were being
established across America at that time. Some thrived, but the majority
fell apart within a couple short years. They failed for a number of
reasons: latrines overflowed, the tofu supply ran out, the livestock
starved to death and so forth. But what many of them had in common was a
cascading systems failure of their foundational hypothesis -- that social
change could be achieved through self-transformation and the problems of
power could be solved simply by ignoring them. There was always a
Machiavellian in the transformational mist, though, and a refusal to
acknowledge outright how power creates invisible structures that
undermine the potential for cooperative action ultimately led to their
implosion. It's in this stale pub, with its complimentary WiFi and
overpriced organic popcorn, that those invisible power structures
continue to thrive.

"There has to be incentive. There has to be. You can't force people to
use it," a woman in the corner mutters. She's among a cluster of people
who for some reason are all carrying the same cheap, ugly backpack. Her
hand gestures become more aggressive as the conversation progresses and
she looks to be caught in a moment midway between panic and ecstasy. Her
expression would make the perfect emoji for the inertia of our time. It
looks sort of like this: (&'Z)

"Our notions of digital utopianism are deeply rooted in a communal wing
of American counter-culture from the 1960s. That group of people have
had an enormous impact on how we do technology. Many of the leading
figures in technology come from that wing, Steve Jobs would be one,"
says Fred Turner, a communications professor at Stanford University who
researches and writes about how counterculture and technology interact.

"Their ideas of what a person is and what a community should be has
suffused our idealized understanding of what a virtual community can be
and what a digital citizen should be. That group believed that what you
had to do to save the world was to build communities of consciousness "
places where you would step outside mainstream America and turn away
from politics and democracy, turn away from the state, and turn instead
to people like yourself and to sharing your feelings, your ideas and
your information, as a way of making a new world."

There's a fault line that runs underneath the recycling bins of
America's abandoned hippy communes all the way to my cracked iPhone 5
screen. And if there is one man who epitomizes the breadth of this
fault, it's Stewart Brand.

In 1968, Brand published the Whole Earth Catalog, an internet before the
internet that provided a directory of products for sustainable,
alternative and creative lifestyles, and helped connect those who
pursued them. When the Whole Earth Catalog went out of business in 1971,
Brand threw a "demise party" wherein the audience got to choose who
would receive the magazine's remaining twenty grand. They chose to give
it to Fred Moore, an activist moonlighting as a dishwasher, who would go
on to found the Homebrew Computer Club -- the birthplace of Apple and the
PC. In the 80s Brand launched The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, one of
the world's first virtual communities. Following its success, he started
the Global Business Network -- a think tank to shape the future of the
world. They've worked on "navigating social uncertainty" with
corporations like Shell Oil & AT&T, among others. In 2000, GBN was
bought by Monitor Group, a consultancy firm that made headlines in 2011
by earning millions of dollars from the Libyan Government to manage and
enhance the global profile of Muammar Gaddafi.

Brand's most enduring legacy will likely come from coining the phrase
"information wants to be free," which serves as the business model for
the Actually Existing Internet and the Big Data dream.

Looking around the brewpub, listening to the chatter, and staring into
the bright blue eyes of my would-be employer, you can almost hear the
words of Google CEO Eric Schmidt echo against the minimalist decor: "We
know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less guess
what you're thinking about."

In San Francisco, my fellow disruptees have taken to the streets and
kicked off a proper bricks & bottle backlash against this sort of
dictator-grade hubris that has come to define the Internet of Kings.
Crude graffiti reading "DIE TECHIE SCUM" is scrawled on the sidewalk
next to Googlebus blockades. TECH = DEATH signs are held up at protests.
Tires are slashed, windows are smashed and #techhatecrimes is a hashtag
that is being passed around Silicon Valley without a hint of irony.

Just down the street from where I'm sitting, a more passive form of
protest has manifested in the form of a new cafe that promises an escape
from the incessant blips and bleeps of the internet and its
accoutrements. The tables there are also long and communal, but they're
wrapped inside an aluminum metal mesh designed to interrupt and restrain
wireless signals and WiFi.

We are not going to escape this crisis by putting ourselves in a cage.
There is no opt-out anymore. You can draw the blinds, deadlock your
door, smash your smartphone, and only carry cash, but you'll still get
caught up in their all-seeing algorithmic gaze. They've datafied your
car, your city and even your snail mail. This is not a conspiracy, it's
the status quo, and we've been too busy displacing our anxiety into
their tidy little containers to realize what's going on.

"Do you have any questions for me"? he finally asks, abruptly. My beer
is empty, I'm thirsty for another, and the interview hasn't gone well.
I've failed to put on a brave face and the only questions that I have
concern how much money I'm going to make. Will it be enough to pay for
my escalating rent now that the datarazzi have moved into the
neighborhood? Or will I have to drive an ??ber in my spare time to make
ends meet?

The internet is a failed utopia. And we're all trapped inside of it. But
I'm not willing to give up on it yet. It's where I first discovered punk
rock and anarchism. Where I learned about the I Ching and Albert Camus
while downloading "Holiday in Cambodia" at 15kbps. It's where I first
perved out on the photos of a girl I would eventually fall in love with.
It's home to me, you and everybody we know.

No, the appropriate question to ask is: "What is the purpose of my life"?

I've seen the best minds of my generation sucked dry by the economics of
the infinite scroll. Amidst the innovation fatigue inherent to a world
with more phones than people, we've experienced a spectacular failure of
the imagination and turned the internet, likely the only thing between
us and a very dark future, into little more than a glorified counting

Am I data, or am I human? The truth is somewhere in between. Next time
you click I AGREE on some purposefully confusing terms and conditions
form, pause for a moment to interrogate the power that lies behind the
code. The dream of the internet may have proven difficult to maintain,
but the solution is not to dream less, but to dream harder.

Douglas Haddow is a writer. He's online.  {AT} douglashaddow



#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org