I am a tooth
I am a tooth
Facebook is about milieu control. I think it’s worth considering what else might be happening alongside milieu control, especially because I think Facebook has given itself the mandate to extract what it can from people when they are most in need of human connection, and to offer a receptive audience to the most compelling bidders.
I am very sorry to call out the person who wrote this, she’s just trying to swim for shore in a content tsunami that rages terribly all around her. But her questions suited my purposes quite well, AND, having worked in video games for a number of years, I know a little bit about how these projects work. I feel completely qualified to answer these questions.
ONE TWEET. THIS FIT IN ONE TWEET. IF YOU FUCK IT UP YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE.
Kay: The flaw there is probably the fact that C is early-bound. …you wind up with megabytes of features that are essentially bundled together whether you want them or not. And now a thousand system calls, where what you really want is objects that are migrating around the net, and when you need a resource, it comes to you — no operating system. We didn’t use an operating system at PARC. We didn’t have applications either.
Binstock: So it was just an object loader?
Kay: An object exchanger, really. The user interface’s job was to ask objects to show themselves and to composite those views with other ones.
Binstock: You really radicalized the idea of objects by making everything in the system an object.
Kay: No, I didn’t. I mean, I made up the term “objects.” Since we did objects first, there weren’t any objects to radicalize. We started off with that view of objects, which is exactly the same as the view we had of what the Internet had to be, except in software. What happened was retrograde. When C++ came out, they tried to cater to C programmers, and they made a system that was neither fish nor fowl. And that’s true of most of the things that are called object-oriented systems today. None of them are object-oriented systems according to my definition. Objects were a radical idea, then they got retrograded.
ORACLE page 100, 1978 via
Bridle @ 21:00:
I can get really doomy & gloomy about the inaccessibility & invisibility of technology – and I will – but I would contend there’s this dual nature to it. For the more that technology itself wants to become invisible, wants to become illegible, wants to become used as a vehicle for powerful intentions, the very process by which that happens, this instantiation, also makes it more visible & acceptable to us. It’s no longer an abstract politics. It has to be written down in lines of code. It has to be installed in large chunks of infrastructure. Therefore if we do learn its language, if we do come to read it, then we have more access to the intentions behind it than ever we did before.
Bridle’s bit about his Homo Sacer project is also :S
"the people recognise themselves in their commodities" and with close to 30,000 notes this image is nothing if not a commodity though of course it’s the ‘simple’ act of uploading the image which commodifies it
i see a boy his hand in a splint playing a game on a tablet computer. what i’m supposed to see is a rejection of good-activity in favour of bad-activity, a depiction of a withdrawal from the ‘real’, a mind closed off from a putative social reality with which engagement is an intrinsically productive and mutually beneficial activity.
except the perceived ersatz : real relationship in the photo mirrors the ersatz : real relationship of the viewer, we’re staring at a photo and pretending to draw a meaningful conclusion from it when really we’re basking in the emotional response it provokes
and worst of all this falsehood that our reality is not manufactured in the smallest details, that the production of social ideals is not the primary function of all systems of manufacture; so that we can be so blind as to say, oh, this form of manufactured experience is morally superior to this one, and so on