Following
our past lecture on information, I found Dan Schiller’s chapter on the
commodification process to be quite compelling. I found this reading to be
applicable to my everyday life, specifically in the way that certain
technologies embody the dimensions of commodities, that being, the use and
exchange value. Within contemporary society, we as humans have undoubtedly
become commodities where our personal information is turned into capital. For
example, Facebook as a social media platform encompasses Schiller’s idea that
information can be both as resource and a commodity. When users sign onto their
Facebook accounts, the platform has utility for us as information can be turned
into knowledge. This is evident as our timelines are now supplied with news
stories and articles that transform information into knowledge on various
subjects. However, while the platform holds a use value, it simultaneously extracts
private data from its users creating an exchange value which allows companies
to accumulate capital. This is demonstrated when the platform tracks our activity
and interests which then appear as an advertisement on our timelines.
Additionally,
these ideas can also be connected back to our class discussion on capitalism,
specifically in regards to how it exists as information. Here we acknowledged
that capitalism is still a global system of production but is no longer
dominated by selling as it is rather the way that global trade is governed by
the logic of capital as information.
One way this is present today is within an individuals LinkedIn profile. While
we use this tool to network and find jobs, our bodies are shaped to present
ourselves as commodities to future employers. Ultimately, this labour power
highlights the way in which the employers that view our profiles own and
control the dispensation of information as a commodity.
Facebook is an excellent example of information as capitalism. Once we post to Facebook, that information is no longer just ours. It is sold to companies who then exploit that information to try and get money from us. It goes in a full circle. Its shocking how websites these days can take out information from us and turn it around trying to profit from us. For example I was looking for flights to Punta Cana and the next time i went on a website with advertisements, there were ones promoting "cheap flights to Punta Cana." It is alomst impossibly in todays society with technology to keep ones information private.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile Facebook is a great choice to highlight how information has become central to the capitalist means of production, it may be interesting to also look at websites that do not fall into the category of social media. Further questioning on this topic could look at how popular Wiki sites, or online sharing services such as Pinterest have taken similar or different approaches to commodification of ideas or knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI see how our personal information being commodified can be problematic, but since so many social media platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn are free to use, I do not think that we can have both privacy and free applications. Advertisements posted by Facebook based on past browsing history are always promoting things that I have already viewed online. Facebook uses our information as a commodity and then goes on to provide users with resources that align with our interests. However, by offering ads for things that the user has already accessed, Facebook is not showing us anything new. This proves that targeted advertising is less for the benefit of the user who's information is driving the commodification process, and more for the advertisers. If users stopped using Facebook and moved to another platform, the same thing would happen unless we paid for social media.
ReplyDeleteExcellently written and argued Megan. The dispensation of our information being owned as a commodity could not be more farther from the truth. We view such sights like LinkedIn and Facebook as beneficial for ourselves to branch out into the capitalist/business world and to create a name, however, there seems to be a one-upping for lack of a better word, by the conglomerates and the corporations who view our profiles and supposedly have a buffet of intellectual information that can be discarded as though it was purchased and no longer useful - us! How priceless will our information and opinions become? Will this become detrimental to the proletariats, those who work for the means of production, and will this effect the wage gap? Information is powerful, and can be skewed in ways that may wind up becoming dangerous for forthcoming generations to experience.
ReplyDeleteI think that was a very good insight to Schiller’s chapter on the commodification process. I think your elaboration of Facebook and LinkedIn are great examples of how information is turned knowledge to be later exchange.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Facebook is notorious for feeding the advertisements of websites that we have previously visited back to us. Drawing on sanpalagans response I completely agree that targeted advertising is less for the benefit of the users and more for the advertisers. This made me think of Robert Gehl’s book “Reverse Engineering Social Media”. Gehl summarizes how social media website owners are becoming quite powerful because they are able to pull data from their archives to produce knowledge. In particular Ghel claims, “New media capitalist seek to exchange these archives of affect with third parties to gain great amounts of that classical storage unit of social power: monetary wealth” (43). This is what Facebook does, Facebook works with third party websites. The third party website must pay them for the display of their, allowing Facebook to accumulate profit. Once the third parties ad is displayed, it provides them with exposure to the public and thus a greater likelihood users will return. This is also for the purpose that they will make a profit based on the users purchase. In both demonstrates it is clear conglomerates and corporations both have the same goals and that is to accumulate power and profit.
In response to Daniels questions I do think this has already become detrimental to the proletariats. In my personal opinion, I think the public should be receiving some sort of profit, as we are the providers of information and the beginning to the process. Of course, this is unrealistic. But I do think this discussion displays how valuable our information is to media corporations, and to them how users are just another source to means of profit.
I think this was a very good depiction of Schiller's chapter on the commodification process. LinkedIn is unique because it is a professional site and shares one's personal experiences to network. As well as advertising on your screen past websites which a person has visited LinkedIn tailors your advertisements based on work experience, interests and the words others have used to describe you. It is interesting in that LinkedIn can propose individuals to each other in a work environment to work together in a professional sense to accomplish an organizations work.
ReplyDeleteFacebook is notorious for using past browsing history to tailor advertisements on the sides of the page as well as on your personal newsfeed. Although Facebook is free it can be seen how information is commodified because of the relationships between the advertising companies and Facebook.
Very well said, the idea that information that we are now our own product is fascinating. We sell ourselves to appeal to our others that we hope will see our personal value not only through our personas, but rather through our physical bodies. Examples could include having unique profile pictures that grab our potential employers.
ReplyDeleteI find Google's incognito browser gives audiences a false sense of security in that it does track our browser history. When one looks closer at the policies behind incognito, it shows that although it does not track your personal browser history, it does however not hide potential content to future employers. It is important to consider the ways in which we are being monitored as a society and the ideas that advertisers try to show us in order to have us become sold on an idea.
Another great post Megan. I liked how you tied in the example of Facebook to Schiller's argument. I agree that information can be both as resource and a commodity. This is very true when discussing Facebook. Though Facebook is a great platform to use to stay connected with the world, we also release information that can be used a commodity as you said. Additionally, the example of LinkedIn was a great example to use in connection to lecture. I never thought of presenting oneself as a commodity to employers which is essentially what we are doing in the process of networking. In order to do so, we must give up our privacy and reveal information in attempt to benefit in the long run .
ReplyDelete