Sometimes we can learn the most important things about our world by attending to the smallest things, things that seem absolutely trivial and inconsequential such as mardi gras beads.  Pick 5 of the bullet points to address for your blog and be sure to reference the documentary Mardi Gras Made in China and our first readings in Goldstein’s Low Wage Capitalism:

• What are your personal assumptions about “Made in China”?
  

When I hear “made in china”, I think “cheap”, “possibly contains high amounts of lead” “too expensive to make in the US” and “not worth making well”

• What is globalization, and how does it impact product manufacture and sales?
  

As stated in the Goldstein readings, globalization means that companies are always searching for the cheapest place to outsource their labor to. This creates a never-ending wild goose chase to find who will work for the smallest amount.

• Why do more and more U.S. companies manufacture and source products overseas, and why do U.S. consumers purchase these products?
    It is cheaper to manufacture goods overseas than it is to manufacture them in the US. The cost of living, taxes, and other employment restrictions (minimum wage) are constantly going up in the US, so hiring US employees gets too expensive. By outsourcing the work, many of those costs are eliminated. US consumers continue to purchase these products because they either don't want to pay the high prices for Made-In-USA goods, or there is no Made-In-USA equivalent of the product they want to buy.
  
  
• What are the working conditions at foreign factories producing goods for the U.S. market?
   Usually very poor. The conditions of foreign factories often reflect those of “Company Towns” in the US in the 20th Century, but quality of life is much, much lower.
  
  
• Why do factory workers in foreign factories work under the current conditions? 
  There is often no other choice. The workers have families they need to take care of, and this work, though dangerous and dull, provides the most consistent income. As shown in the Mardi Gras: Made in China video, the workers there have a very consistent work schedule.
  
  
• How are artifacts/products embedded with social and cultural meaning? How and why does a product become disposable?
  A product is seen as disposable if it is cheaply made (thus cheap to buy) and would be too redundant to keep to re-use. These are usually utilitarian objects that are considered “useless” after being used.
  
   http://www.businessinsider.com/better-think-twice-before-throwing-away-these-products-2012-3
  

Barricadin' Buses. Why?

This week we began our section on 'Race, Technology and Everyday Life' to broaden our understanding of technology beyond those who work in the 'information industry' and investigate how technology comes into contact with peoples' everyday experiences.  Specifically we do not merely want to understand how a technology is used but uncover the contests around technology that are always linked to larger struggles for economic mobility, political maneuvering and community building. 

For this week's blog I want you to read about the controversy between Google Bus and San Francisco residents and discuss how it is connected to issues of gentrification, theorizing work in the information society, activism, the ways in which activism is reported (how is race reported).  How does this fit into our discussions about technology, race and everyday life?  Please remember to use class readings to ground your analysis.  You may start here and here and here for resources. 

I had not heard of the Google bus blockade before, and it was definitely an interesting story to read, though quite sad as well. From what I understand, Google wanted to get its employees to work faster, so it started using buses to get their employees to work faster. Why have each employee drive a separate car when you can bus them all to work? This means fewer cars on the road for other commuters, and Google gets its employees to work more efficiently. Was Google illegally using Muni's bus stops? It appears so. Should Google be paying to use those stops? I think so. It sounds to me like that problem got ironed out pretty quickly. Problem solved, right?

Well, not quite, because the protesters are still blocking the bus from moving? Why are they doing that? Oh I see their signs now, they say something about “no more gentrification”. What exactly is “gentrification”? It is the process where neighborhoods become wealthier, housing prices go up, and the poor are often displaced. That's what these bus protesters are complaining about. They want to maintain a status quo. They don't want local road conditions improved for fear of their dwellings becoming more desirable, and therefore more expensive. . In other words, they are so concerned with their own comfort, that they think it's right to go out and stop other people from getting work so the road conditions don't improve. After all, if the Google employees can't get to work, the housing prices won't go up, right? If other people are remedying the congestion problem, then, by golly, stop traffic and create a problem yourself. Oh, wait. If you have to create the problem yourself, you probably are the problem already.

Artificially maintaining the status quo doesn't work this way. You argue as that the only reason housing prices are going up is because Google is making roads emptier. It's as though you want smog and clogged roads simply so you don't have to move. When your landlord wants to charge higher rates because people are willing to pay to live somewhere where its easier to get to work, that's perfectly fine. It's called the free market. Things change. Cities change, and its about time people learned that. If anything, stagnancy, not change, should be avoided.

Are there solutions to this gentrification? I believe so, but stopping a bus isn't one of them. Creating affordable housing is. Creating a city that is easier to move around in is another option. City governments have a duty to make their cities easier and better to live in, and one way of doing that is by adding mass transportation. Google has actually helped resolve that problem, and the “residents” aren't helping. That's not a very good term though, “residents”. It creates an artificial divide, as though Google employees are some evil master race while the underdog “residents” are the oppressed minority. At least one protester painted the picture that way in this article. As far as I'm concerned, those “Google-etes” are residents too. They just happen to work at Google. The protesters are the ones who say that the Google employees don't have a right to live where they do. The protesters are creating the divide, not Google and its employees.

 P.S. Having to impersonate the "enemy" to make people hate them is pretty low (and lame), if you ask me: 

Fallen for a Sales Pitch: Blog Post 6/7, DTC 475.

In “How the Internet Enables Intimacy”, Stefana Broadbent argues that, while some researchers are dismayed by the fact that we are not using social media to connect with a wider range of people, she, rather, is intrigued by the discovery that users of social media tend to use it to strengthen relationships with usually no more than five people. What makes social media great, Broadbent argues, is that these relationship interactions are no longer restricted by time or space, as social media allows for instant communication, no matter where the two people are located.

Broadbent also brings to our attention that those in power are trying to limit us from communicating freely with others. Businesses try to keep their employees focused on their work, schools try to keep students focused on their studies, etc. Our lives are dictated more and more by those in power. Now, in some situations, I believe the rule to not use a cellphone or other communication device is important and, in fact common sense. If you're being paid to complete certain tasks at a desk job, and you are efficiently and competently completing those tasks, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to field the occasional call from home or answer a text once in a while, just so long as it doesn't interfere with the work you contracted to do. Some jobs are simply not conducive to this. If you are are “board-opping” at a radio station, you know when you have a time to answer a text, and when you shouldn't because you need to focus making sure the upcoming commercial break gets played. You are on company time and company money, so make sure you do your job well. If you can answer a couple texts as well, great! If not, then don't complain as if you are an oppressed minority suffering a social injustice, because you are not. There are some jobs where no cell phone use while working is mandatory. I've worked two of these types of jobs, one paid, and one volunteer. One such position is where appearance and attentiveness are part of the job requirements. If you're working as an usher at a football game, you don't pull out your phone and start texting. You are paid to stand their, answer questions, be courteous, and look professional. Part of looking professional in such a setting is being alert, smiling, welcoming guests, and being concerned that they have a good time at the game that they paid money to buy tickets for. The company is not paying you to send texts to your buddy about what you want to do that weekend. If that kind of job sounds impossible to you, then don't apply for it.

The other kind of job that may wisely restrict social media use is a dangerous job where alertness is required at all times. Railroad work is one such example. There was a train collision several years ago where the engineer of a passenger train was texting on his cell phone, missed a red signal, and plowed his train into the rear of a freight train a few minutes later. Since then, the Federal Railroad Administration banned the use of cell phones and other hand-held electronic devices not issued to employees by the railroad. This rule is one that I have to follow, even on the 5 mile long heritage railway where I volunteer as train crew. When I am on train crew, my phone is stowed away in my grip, only to be turned on and used in case of emergency. For everyone on and off the train to remain safe, I need to be fully alert and ready to act, and a cell phone would only prove to be a distraction.

We must remember, however, that getting to use our devices at work at all is quite a privilege, for there are many people who work in other countries where they spend most of their lives doing nothing but making the devices we long to use. In Sophia Cheng's article The Deadly Labor Behind Our Phones, Laptops and Consumer Gadgets, we are told of a factory where people work long hours, standing the entire time, making less than a dollar each day, sleeping when their shift is done, only to do it over again when they wake up. Of course, in such a brutal environment, the only phones or other gadgets allowed at work are those that they are building; the same gadgets that we buy and then complain about not being allowed to use while we are at work.

I don't want the moral of this talk to be “life is never so bad that it can never get get worse”, but I do think we should realize that by demanding to have uninterrupted contact with our friends and family, no matter where we are or who is paying us for our time, other people on these other countries are suffering because of it, because of the few in power who see the need to make money as paramount. I do not want to demonize technology. Burning cell phones is not going to do anyone (or anyone's lungs) any good. However, I do want to suggest that we start looking critically at how we use our technology. Why do we, both as individuals and as a people, buy into the lie that we always need newer, faster machines. Why do we we need to use these machines 24/7? Why is their little to no demand that companies build more dependable, longer lasting machines with legacy support programs? What really makes these new gadgets “better”?

We have fallen for a sales pitch, and people on other countries are paying for it.

"Embodiment": DTC 475 Blog #5

"For this weeks blog I want you to reflect on 'what does embodiment mean'. Hawthorn shows us how the Internet has been used to exploit women and children in the global prostitution industry and it has in turn shaped how the internet is structured, "although the Internet offers open communication to people throughout the world, it should not be permitted to be dominated and controlled by men's interests..." How do our expectations of the Internet facilitate men's desires? What does this say about men's desires and expectations of 'real' (i.e. material) women? What does this say about power reasons in society?"

From http://www.merriam-webster.com :

em·body

transitive verb \im-ˈbä-dē\
: to represent (something) in a clear and obvious way : to be a symbol or example of (something)
: to include (something) as a part or feature

"Embodiment"

“The Internet is great” 'twas said.

“No one knows what paths you tread”

“No one knows where you log on

“Or who are, 'what hat you don'”

“Trust me, you've nought to dread”

So I logged on so I could see

what my options were to “broadcast me”

I soon found out that I could start

a fanbase for me, I was off the charts

And I had all my privacy

And when social media was all the craze

Getting Facebook likes, well, I had my ways

And dating sites allowed me to mingle

(I wondered how much longer I'd be single)

Ah yes, those were the glory daze (sic)

But I found, with no one watching

Websites for gazing upon debauching

And vigor for vice awakened within

I thought to myself “could this be a sin?”

But found myself ever more wanting

And so it went on, for day after day

I must admit, it didn't feel “okay

But no one knew . . . right?

I was completely out of sight!

And then I learned it always works that way

For I read a story in the news

About a girl who had to choose

When kidnapped one night

Faced a hellish plight

Of whether to die or face endless abuse

And so she was sold, and suffered long

at the hands of thugs, who did her wrong

sold over again, for a man to posses

so he could regain his “manliness”

And then sold again, to another she'd belong.

And all this went on, for year upon year

How much sadness? How many shed tears?

And all hidden in obscurity

For the sake of patrons' privacy

All because she “had a nice rear?”

I recoiled in sadness, and in grief and in pain

I realized that all I'd ever sought to gain

all my wants, my desires, my demands, my druthers

was forcefully dredged from the life of another

And so I sat there, to weep in the rain.

My happiness found in the shackles of a fellow

My entertainment revealed to be rotten and hollow

I sat there and pondered “what path shall I follow?”

“Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” John 3:20

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/tricked-the-documentary/trailers/3948188

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/meet-filmakers-behind-human-trafficking-documentary-tricked/

-- Drew Black, 2014.

*Witty Title* (a.k.a. "DTC 475 Blog Post #4")

This week will be a 'student led' blog response.  I want you to provide your reaction and reflection the of documentary 'Office Tigers'.  Discuss how technology is an artifact and process of globalization, how technology facilitates cultural imperialism & how the digital divide reveals the contradictions about development around the world.

  Please make sure to ground your reflection by drawing on this weeks reading by Nakamura, Shome and Dori.  

      Drori states in Global E-Litism that “the era of globalization is marked by the expansion of social exchanges internationally and transnationally. Global interaction extends to more and more spheres of our life. These days, people, commodities, capital, and information rapdily flow across national borders and to all hidden corners of the world. . . Globality, then, describes the scope of social life”(4). The Office Tiger business is built directly on this principle of globalization and is made possible by the employment of modern technology

     
     Office Tigers was definitely interesting, thought-provoking, and somewhat depressing too. The idea behind the Office Tiger company seems like a good business move, mining a new market and opening up jobs to the local population as a result. My approach to the situation is best summed up in the categories provided by a 1960's Spaghetti Western;

 

The Good:

     
The company seems to be successful. The employees act professionally. A professional work environment is put in place, and the company goes to great lengths to ensure that the employee base is educated in every aspect of their area of work, be it spreadsheet organization or graphic design for posters. Since the company is successful, they are a major employer in their area, and their work environment is probably safer than many of the other jobs available in the area.

 
The Bad:
    
I don't really like the boss. He carries himself somewhat professionally, but he seems rather...proud. I don't blame him for being pleased with the business he has started, and I certainly don't fault him for wanting to improve the company he has poured so much into. Still, he seems to think that, somehow, he is better than his employees. Honestly, from the way he carries himself in the documentary, it seems that he treats his employees like doormats. He even gets their names wrong on camera and doesn't seem to care. To him, they're just another cog in the machine. He shows off the employees as if he's showing off a new car.

 
The Ugly:
     
Let's face it, the work that Office Tigers do is mundane, stressful work. Since you serve clients around the globe, the company operates 24/7. It seems that many of the employees work very, very long shifts, staring at computer screen for hours at a time. Add to that the fact that they are frequently on a tight schedule, and the work life seems even less healthy. Of course, some of these elements are part of the industry, and can't be avoided. Time zones exist, there's no way around that. It does seem, however, that shifts could be scheduled more efficiently (which might result in a better final product as well). Still, it does seem that a position at Office Tiger is a highly desired job in the local community.

    

 Discuss how technology is an artifact and process of globalization, how technology facilitates cultural imperialism & how the digital divide reveals the contradictions about development around the world.

     
     Now, the blog prompt instructs us to discuss how technology is an artifact and process of of globalization. However, I am arguing that it is not. Changes in technology are not caused by globalization. Rather, technology is an enabler of globalization. Technology itself does not globalize industry, culture, etc., but it does make globalization easier. It usually doesn't take long for someone to figure out how to use the tech in such a fashion, and thereby make a profit.

     
     This same technology also facilitates “cultural imperialism” to some degree. The rest of the world is starting to look more and more like the Western world. Even the various places in the Western world are beginning to look more and more like America. Yet as various cultures in the American melting pot begin to re-separate into the figurative salad bowl, America is beginning to look more like other parts of the world.

     
      In the case of Office Tigers, some of the employees may feel pressured by their clients who live in 1st world countries and have high expectations for the work they have contracted out. When one of the employees is lambasted for “inferior” work, one might say this is a prime example of cultural imperialism, as the employee in the 3rd world has to live up to the expectations of the 1st world. However, there may yet be a power balance possible. If more and more work at a 1st world business is outsourced to 3rd world countries, the 1st world business may eventually become dependent on that outsourcing, which then puts the power in the hands of the 3rd world contractor. America was once a manufacturing superpower, but is no longer, and now relies on other countries to make its things, which is definitely having an effect on American economics.

     
     As a final note related to that last thought and one of my previous blog posts, we often think of “technology” as the newest Facebook machine that was imported from China, will be used for a few years in America, and then will be junked and burned for copper salvage in Africa. But technology was and can be so much more than that. Before globalization, the “Made in USA” stamp on just about anything was a sign of a quality product. Now, it most frequently appears on old things sitting in the local antique mall.

    
      Perhaps that will change. If you haven't seen this ad yet, you should. Building, crafting a quality product to last is something to be proud of, and something America needs to get back to. We don't neccesairly need to globalize our culture, but we do need to work on re-cultivating it here in our homeland. “Work is beautiful thing”.

      Digital Culture Pintrest Board:
 http://www.pinterest.com/wkndrailroader/digital-culture-defined/

I decided to focus on some of the problems with digital technology and how it, when mishandled or poorly used, ends up hurting those in various countries of various races and classes. I focused on sharing videos, as they tell the story more efficiently.

Digital Culture always loves the next trending thing and wants it instantly, rarely thinking about what the human cost for the newest gadget will be, and not caring about the human cost of what happens to the the last-generation gadget.

      Filter bubbles are set in place to keep us from having to suffer things we don't like. When I think of filters, my first impression is “oh, something unwanted is being kept out”. However, when one looks into the various uses of filters, they are put in place not so much to keep unwanted things out, but to bring good things and only good things in. Swimming pools have filters not so much to keep twigs and scum out, but to allow clean water in. We put filters into our coffee pots not because coffee grounds are horrible, but because pure coffee tastes better. It all comes down to signal versus noise. Audio filters are put in place in broadcasting, not so much to reduce the noise, but to increase the strength of the signal. We could care less about noise if only it wasn't interfering with our desired signal.

      The prompt uses the act of wearing headphones in public as an example of a self-implemented filter bubble. With the example of the headphones, we don't really care what is happening in the audio world around us, so long as it isn't interfering with the signal coming from the cans around our ears. At least this instance of filter use is self-implemented. In the real world, interference (noise) is part of everyday life, and often is very important. Sometimes that interference is itself another signal. Say you put on the headphones, turn up the volume, and go for a jog. While you are on your jog, you cross the railroad tracks downtown. Your headphone filter is doing such a good job at what it does and you're so “in the zone”, that you don't get any unwanted noise from other “channels”, such as the air horn on top of the locomotive that's you didn't see. Meanwhile the engineer in the locomotive is trying to create a strong enough signal with that airhorn that it overcomes your filter and interferes with your signal. Hopefully you'll hear it in time.

      Mr. Pariser's TED talk details a new problem; filters are being installed for us without our consent. Mr. Pariser talks about how Google, Facebook, Yahoo News, and other major modern tech companies are using algorithms to reduce the amount of content we are shown that the companies think we won't like while showing us more content that we probably will like. The consequences are obvious. In this situation, we are ripe to become experts in our own points of view, while wondering “what happened to all the other people who disagree with me?” We are online at the same time as millions of other people, and we are merely fattened up by seeing only content we totally agree with.

     Fortunately, not every website is owned by a large corporation. There are many online forums on the internet, many of them using the V-Bulletin software. Many of these forums are hobby or interest-based. I collect and operate model trains and antique lanterns. I am a member of several forums that are made up of people who have these same interests. Now, to some degree, I'm going to be similar to another human who likes trains or lanterns. However, we could live across the country from each other. We will likely have different beliefs, morals, cultural standards, education levels, etc. While “off topic” talk is generally prohibited on the public part of the forum, exposure to different view points via a private message conversation on a forum is something I may no longer get in my Youtube (or is it Google+ Video now?) comments section. Some online games work the same way, allowing you to connect and chat with other people around the world (though you may not know their real names). These forums and games, some of which are quite well established, may end proving to be the “virtual campfires” or “virtual pubs” that we need.

A few of the forums I'm on:

www.railroadforums.com 

http://tycoforums.com/tyco/forum/default.asp

 www.rypn.org 

The lantern forums are hosted as Facebook groups, but who knows? Those may have the results filtered as well.

     Of course, "with blessings come problems". Forums can be hard to moderate. People aren't always civil to each other, and the classic "flame war" begins. So I leave you with another well-known comic. 

This image from Here.