Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- About the Author
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Understanding Making Information Matter Together
- 3 Studying Materializations: A Methodology of Life Cycles
- Interlude: Four Practices of Making Information Matter
- 4 Association
- 5 Conversion
- 6 Secrecy
- 7 Speculation
- 8 The Ethics of Making Information Matter
- Notes
- List of Artworks Cited
- References
- Index
5 - Conversion
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2024
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- About the Author
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Understanding Making Information Matter Together
- 3 Studying Materializations: A Methodology of Life Cycles
- Interlude: Four Practices of Making Information Matter
- 4 Association
- 5 Conversion
- 6 Secrecy
- 7 Speculation
- 8 The Ethics of Making Information Matter
- Notes
- List of Artworks Cited
- References
- Index
Summary
‘On the one hand we have state-based online surveillance and on the other we have surveillance by companies and other entities. For both of these, surveillance increased mainly due to the technological possibilities that we have today. Just 20, 30 years ago, there would not have been the technological possibilities to retain and analyze data … The analytic tools that are used today, such as machine learning and algorithms, also increase the amount of online surveillance.’
(Kate90r13)Hacker Kate90r131 summarizes the upsurge of associative information practices. He observes powerful routines in analysing, revealing, and disclosing insights based on digital information and in engineering these insights into new products and socio-technical procedures. Kate90r13 is not the only one who watches these developments with a growing unease. Self-critical journalism problematizes our role as consumers in this development as our clicks, swipes, and likes are analysed by those with the privileged overview (New Scientist, 2018). The vocabulary of the ‘frightful five’ (referring to Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft; coined by Manjoo 2017) or worries about China's ‘digital authoritarianism’ (Erixon and Lee-Makiyama, 2011) were early indicators of a rising awareness about the consequences of sharing information online. By today, countless reports, citizen and legal initiatives, as well as entire research programs address how public and commercial actors practice the collecting, storing, curating, and processing of information. Policies for opting out of digital services (Burgess, 2018), personal choices of ‘UnFacebooking’ (Evans, 2014) and ‘digital detox’ (Syvertsen, 2020), as well as ‘non-participation’ (Casemajor et al, 2015) are attempts to answer these trends. Yet, not everyone agrees with such radical reactions: “Pulling the plug is not an option”, says hacker jE2EE. He prefers to engage critically with the rise of association without abandoning the Internet as such. An opt-out of online services is almost impossible as it produces social, financial, and utility costs that are hard to afford (Brunton and Nissenbaum, 2011, 2016; Morozov, 2017). In addition, an opt-out may also not be desirable. Despite the rise of objectionable online practices, most users cannot imagine living without online infrastructures. In many societies, online technologies have become key to how users socially express, make, and reproduce themselves. We have started to become-with the Internet. This also creates a sense of identity and ownership, which is why pulling the plug is not an option.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Making Information MatterUnderstanding Surveillance and Making a Difference, pp. 69 - 86Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2023