Panopticism and digital media

mzungu

According to Foucault, the panoptic method of surveillance is an ideal way to keep control of subjects. The suspicion that one is always being watched results in the internalisation of discipline, thus being coercive minus violence (although obviously the threat of it is there if a they step out of line).

Is this similar to what happens now when peoples lives being broadcast online, the possibility that one misstep can make you a target for online bullying, hence people will start to behave online as if they are being watched? Or is it simply just a continuation or refinement of what has gone on before, for example, informing on neighbours and acquaintances in totalitarian regimes etc?

Foucault, Michel (1975). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, New York: Random House.

Fathom

Contrary evidence? For example, variations of Joseph Wolpe's "systematic desensitization?"

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Contrary evidence? For example, variations of Joseph Wolpe's "systematic desensitization?"

As in digital media has become so commonplace we are all now conditioned to be desensitised to negative aspects?

Black Swan

mzungu wrote: »

As in it (digital media) has become so commonplace we are conditioned ourselves to be desensitised to negative aspects?

Continuing process of cultural change?

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

As in digital media has become so commonplace we are all now conditioned to be desensitised to negative aspects?

Born with it. Ubiquitous. Expected.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

Continuing process of cultural change?

Have we fully caught up with it yet? True cultural change (sometimes) happens at glacier melting speeds, whereas technology changes rapidly.

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Born with it. Ubiquitous. Expected.

Fair point. But are we passive receivers, or are we the ones with agency leading the charge?

Black Swan

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica?

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica?

To paraphrase some journalist last week: "facebook is not social media, it's surveillance." Private companies now have information on the population that governments would be quite interested in. In a way we shouldn't be surprised, if you don't pay for it then you are the product!

Black Swan

Surveillance indeed.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

Surveillance indeed.

The question is, were FB aware of this? Hard to believe that nobody in the organisation knew what the deal was.

Black Swan

I too find it incredible that someone at FaceBook HQ did not know.

beauf

I think the advantages are beginning to be out weighed by the disadvantages. The risk is we will lose the advantages in the back lash.

Fathom

beauf wrote: »

The risk is we will lose the advantages in the back lash.

If web is moving towards global free market. It's too late. Profits drive web behavior. You want free access? Then accept tracking. If not, pay.

beauf

Fathom wrote: »

If web is moving towards global free market. It's too late. Profits drive web behavior. You want free access? Then accept tracking. If not, pay.

Even if you pay they'll still track you. Without your knowledge.

Until that is challenged and regulated with massive penalties companies will just continue to do as they please.

Fathom

beauf wrote: »

Even if you pay they'll still track you. Without your knowledge.

You may have a point. Tracking tied to profits.

beauf wrote: »

Until that is challenged and regulated with massive penalties companies will just continue to do as they please.

Doubt that government regulation or "massive penalties" will occur. And if they do, international web ISPs and social media providers may find a way to circumvent such regulation. Hosting from offshore? Or buy politicians by donating to their campaigns. For example, to avoid heavy gun regulation in US, Trump got 30 million dollars from the NRA. He will not bite the hand that feeds. Nor will other politicians like Rubio, also funded by NRA. There's a long list of US politicians bought by NRA and the gun lobby published in the NY Times.

beauf

One hope is another company will arise with a better product with consumer protections. That kills off the other product if users switch to it. Or something bad happens to force the companies to change. GDPR might have an impact here.

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Or buy politicians by donating to their campaigns. For example, to avoid heavy gun regulation in US, Trump got 30 million dollars from the NRA. He will not bite the hand that feeds. Nor will other politicians like Rubio, also funded by NRA. There's a long list of US politicians bought by NRA and the gun lobby published in the NY Times.

Quite a cosy little cartel going on there.

As regards surveillance, whomever comes along after Cambridge Analytica will probably have access to a lot more information given the new technologies on the horizon. What we saw now may only be the beginning of something far bigger.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

I too find it incredible that someone at FaceBook HQ did not know.

There are only two answers, none of them good.

Either they really did not know, and therefore questions should be asked about their competence and whether this is the company people should be voluntarily supplying information to.

Or, they did know, and well....that's a right can of worms there.

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

There are only two answers, none of them good. Either they really did not know, and therefore questions should be asked about their competence and whether this is the company people should be voluntarily supplying information to. Or, they did know, and well....that's a right can of worms there.

Good summary.