Blog 11: The Fight for $15

Across the country low wage workers are rallying together under the "Fight for $15". The purpose is to raise the minimum wage in fast food and retail up to $15 an hour. They are fighting to have the right for payed vacation, sick days, and to have fair attendance policies. All with efforts of fair and respectful scheduling practices that would allow low wage workers to work only one job instead of two or three or even four jobs. With this formation of a union, the subjection of racism, sexism, and anti-immigrant discrimination comes along with the organization of the union without retaliation. There is an overwhelmingly number of low wage workers who are female and people of color. The hiring practices for these retail and fast food industries take part in the discrimination knowing that these people are only able to get these jobs yet, are still barely making it to survive.
Many big multi-million dollar corporations and business use scare tactics and intimidation to prevent workers from fighting for more rights and benefits. Many bosses threaten workers with being layed off in order for them to stay quiet about their wages and benefits that they are not receiving. In Fred Goldsteins' lecture "Low-Wage Capitalism" he looks at technology and how it has pushed many corporations into cheapening the worker, to improve the revenue production of labor and increase the overall surplus value. In his lecture he describes a company called Stanley tools who uses computers in their factories to show the workers how they compete with the other factory located in Thailand. Stanley tools uses this as a way to intimidate the workers and threaten them by telling the workers they will move the company to Thailand if they cannot keep up with production. Similarly, other companies are starting to incorporate this idea into their companies. McDonalds and Taco Bell are just two examples of companies beginning to introduce technology into automated ordering systems to basically quiet the complaints of the labor workers and push aside the rallying of many upset low wage workers.

Instead of helping the workers who are struggling to live in this free market economy the new automated ordering systems replace the people who take your order with machines thus, putting even more people out of jobs. In my opinion, the automated ordering systems are an easy and more accessible way for ordering food (aka fast food) but not only is it more lazy but with each new machine, comes one less job for someone else. How will customer service work? Would there even be customer service? And if so is that going to be an automated machine too? Our world is constantly striving to be at the most developed it can be through technology and fast food industries is only the beginning.

Blog 10: Making Stuff Cheap; Q & A

Mardi Gras Made in China is a documentary that confronts both cultural and economic globalism by humanizing the commodity chain from China to the United States. It follows the path of Mardi Gras beads from the streets of a Carnival in New Orleans, where people party and exchange beads for nudity, to factories in Fuzhou, China, where teenage girls live at and sew beads together all day and night. This film exposes the inequalities of globalization and how products that people enjoy and use carelessly affect both who make and consume them.

QUESTION AND ANSWER:

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

A: Nowadays you see “Made in China” everywhere on almost everything in America. I always knew that there were disciplined factories in other countries producing goods for the US, but it never really hit me hard until I actually saw this for my own eyes. It makes me sick to see young girls who have dreams for themselves, slaving away on machines all day and night, only making 10 cents an hour or 10 cents just for the day! I understand that globalizing products such as Mardi Gras beads creates work for many people who need it, but the conditions of work would be unimaginable in America. Sadly, a lot of people when asked where products come from, have no idea that the product they might have just thrown away someone slaved for it so they could put food on their table. In the documentary Mardi Gras: Made in China, when a someone was asked where the beads were made, they had no idea. Then, when they were told the answer they said something similar to “I’m just trying to get drunk and enjoy my vacation.” Products “Made in China” are overlooked in the US.

Q: Why do more and more U.S. companies manufacture and source products overseas, and why do U.S. consumers purchase these products?

A: More and more U.S. companies manufacture and source products overseas because it is cheaper for companies. Companies are realizing that they can go to developing countries where work is needed so that they can get their products made for the lowest price. To have people working in other countries for only 10 cents a day rather than making them in the United States for minimum wage of at least $5 dollars an hour, seems like a no brainer to these companies.  This way companies don’t have to spend as much on the labor but more importantly gain more profit out of their products being sold to the consumers.  U.S. consumers purchase these products for many reasons. Mainly, I believe is because of consumer ignorance against the harsh life of Chinese Factory workers. So many people do not know or understand what workers in China go through for things that we take for granted, because they are not experiencing it themselves. We are constantly corrupted with media and advertisements wanting us to buy more and value money and materialistic things in the U.S. It is hard for people to think in another way when the society you live in is surrounded by this idea.

Q: Why do factory workers in foreign factories work under the current conditions?

Sweatshop Factory in China

A: Factory workers in foreign factories work under the current conditions because they are desperate. They need the money so bad that they are willing 
to work in an unhealthy working environment. A lot of the time girls are sent to live at the factories and send money back to their families so that their family can eat or send siblings to school so they can receive an education to hopefully better their lives. To them working is for the money and that is the most important for them to survive. Same as people in the U.S. having no idea what it would be like to work in sweatshops, people working in foreign factories don't know another way of life, another way of making a living.


Q: What are the working conditions at foreign factories producing goods for the U.S. market? 

A: There is a variety of dangerous work conditions. Unfair calculations of work time, low basic wages which compel a force of overtime, a ridiculously high work intensity and working for 11-12 hours a day, underage workers, and failures for paying things such as social insurance, work-related injury insurance and other insurance that is required by law. Unfortunately there are many others....Would you work in these conditions?

  
      Q: Why do overseas factories welcome U.S. customers and investors?

A:  Overseas factories welcome U.S. customers and investors because these places need the money and it is an investment for them. Their goal is to reform their economy and by establishing business and production with wealthier countries creates more jobs for those who are desperate for it. Although the work conditions are harsh the more developed countries provide the product and what needs to be done, while overseas factories provide the labor and service to produce the product at a low cost. This not only provides jobs for countries such as Japan or China but also more work for people in the U.S.  Globalization plays a major role in this treadmill of production cycle, leaving people initially no choice but take whatever society can offer them and in order to best fit their needs and values. 

Blog 8: Gentrification in Silicon Valley

"The Google bus is a problematic symbol of inequality produced in the area by the tech boom and its high-earning progeny." 

The transportation of ushering thousands of workers from their homes in San Francisco to Silicon Valley through the Google Bus can be an issue pointing to social and technological inequality.
 "...the Google Bus has become the go-to symbol for discord in Silicon Valley", says San Francisco writer Julia Wong. Many view the Google Bus (a term used for any private bus chartered by employers) as a safe way to commute workers, have them arrive in a timely manner, and even take cars off of the street. But there are others who view the Google Bus in a completely different perspective. Not only do these private buses cause congestion, but they are using the routes illegally. And on top of that, what's really concerning people is that rent is going up in areas surrounding the bus routes. Rental owners are well aware of the highly paid techies from various companies who are being commuted every day. Recently there has been protests and blockades in an attempt to bring awareness to the issue, causing controversy in the streets of San Francisco.

These rising prices for rent are pushing those with lower income out, and recruiting those with substantial funds. This can be viewed as a form of gentrification, but should the google buses be blamed for this? Some definitely do not think so, “Wake the hell up! Stop trying to put transportation and housing issues together!” shouted Christa Jones, a shuttle bus employee, to a protesting crowd. I can see how employees for the shuttles and the riding employees see this as unfair treatment from the protesting individuals. People are always trying to put blame on one thing for the reason of their misfortune. The problem lies much deeper than the shuttle and company employees and I do not believe that it is their intention to drive locals out of their homes.

Blog 6/7: Free Labor in the Digital Economy & the Deadly Labor Behind our Technology

Stefana Broadbent’s Ted Talk, “How the internet enables intimacy” looks at how the internet has become a “democratization of intimacy”. We are progressing into this modern world where communication technology such as; texting, facebook, IM are actually cultivating deeper relationships rather than spoiling human intimacy. The world is breaking an imposed isolation that institutions are imposing on people. Over 50 years ago, when you went to work, or institution, during the day there was this focus, this full commitment to the task at hand. People would go about their day not able to talk to those they enjoy or love. Now, there is this great possibility to be in contact throughout the entire day. She uses an example of a baker who works early in the morning and hours later in the morning, he sneaks away to call his wife to wish her a good day when she is starting her day. Its taking a moment to chat whether it be email or IM at work or students sneak text messages at school. Even using social networks at institutions is turning into a common norm. Its this idea of possibility that she points out where people are able to communicate and connect with people we love most through the use of our new technologies, that other generations before never had before. For example she tells us of a couple who each week sets up a Skype webcam at the dinner table to “eat dinner” with their other family across the globe. The close connection we can get through technology aids this degree of intimacy with one another at anytime, at all times.

Institutions try to block the movement of greater possibility of intimacy and have social control for who has the right to self determine their attentions to be isolated. Work and schools try to enforce these “codes” by taking away cell phones, creating fines, or use a version of punishment to make sure people are focused. I agree that there are times when it is ineffective and somewhat distracting to be using communication technology, BUT like everything else moderation is key. It is important to be focused at school and to be hard working when at work, yet if studies are done, if such work is completed and it does not interfere with what is expected, then I don’t see why people can’t take a second to check their private email, facebook, text messages, etc.

In Sophia Cheng's article “The Deadly Labor Behind our Phones, Laptops, and Consumer Gadgets” we are reminded that getting to use these devices are a privilege in itself. While we are using these gadgets on a day to day basis, to ease or communication with one another, poor developing countries are slaving away with nothing else but making these “gadgets” for us at a cost no one would work for in America. People are in a factory working way too long of hours, making less than a dollar each day, hurting themselves making the products, and then head home for bed only to start the same day all over again.

I agree that technology has helped us into a better intimacy and connection with one another but it is to that extra degree that I believe is wrong. When we are constantly on our technology sometimes we forget how to be intimate in actual reality. Are need for having not just a smartphone (similar to a small computer at hand) but in addition we must also have a laptop, tablet, ipod, etc. While all these devices are incredible and enjoyable to use we must understand that there are countries of people suffering to make what we hold so much value to. We need to start critically thinking about when and how we are using our technology on a day to day basis, and how it is effecting not only us but the people producing these “gadgets” for our ongoing cycle of consumerism.

Photo of the working conditions in a factory in China for electronics 

Blog 5: Embodiment

Embodiment is defined as the tangible, visible form of an idea, quality, or feeling. Pornagraphy embodies the idea of exploiting women and children in the global industry of prostitution. People use the internet as a way of open communication to anyone around the world. Any information that is loaded onto the internet may be used or misused by anyone, as talked about in lecture. The internet has shaped global domination and is showed by the use and control of it by the military. Although there is little regulation of what is being put on the internet. The standards of the internet are being set by the sex industry and the consumers supporting it. Due to such high profits for pornagraphy there are few barriers on the net. In the internet’s own way slavery is accepted and exploited by men who feel ownership over the women and children that they are buying for their own personal desires. Women are dehumanized and seen as items in the ‘sex market’ . “Porn is the business of crafting, packaging and selling fantasy” according to the article E-Rogenous Zones by Blaise Cronin and Elisabeth Davenport. They go on to say that porn has become this code word for corrupt male lust. There is this ability for men to interact with porn online, anywhere. “Digital distribution directly to the consumers domestic environment or workplace brings a reassuring sense of privacy to the transaction that heretofore has been uncomfortably public for many individuals.” (E-Rogenous Zones, Positionging pornagraphy in the digital economy, Blaise Cronin and Elisabeth Davenport) This enhances the allowance for men to use these sites whenever they want to connect to them.

The media spectacle plays a major role into the expectations that facilitates men’s desires over the internet. The influence of society and especially the media generalizes the belief of what is to be a ‘male’. The pop-up advertisements, the constant advertisements, strip clubs, and so forth that justify men’s interest for buying sex or to see woman as a body nonetheless. The use of discussion boards for sex tourism enables an exchange of information and can give immediate feedback about their experiences, which gives sex tourism and prostitution more power.  From the article, Race, Gender, and Sex on the Net by Chow-White, he said, “Cyberspace enables sex tourists to build deeper connections between the rationalization, sexualization, and commodification of sex workers' bodies and Western masculinity.” Also, mens expectations of what women “should” look like or should act is unrealistic and reflects a negative expectation of the ‘real’ woman with the use of prostitution and pornography. The culture of pornography is marketing efficiently to not just men but aids the tactics of advertisements marketing towards women to look like the those in the sex industry. Creating this whole idea of how a woman should look and act, and again justifying the power practices of men consuming acts of sexual fantasies.

Blog 4: The 'World' in www.

It was interesting to watch Office Tigers and how globalization has come so far and is still advancing. Technology plays a major role in this, if not the biggest. Technology opened the door for many opportunities and ways to communicate and do business over seas. Office Tigers is set in India yet the work that they do is based off of an American culture. The business provides high end outsourcing services to major American and European companies. To get a job at Office Tiger is very desirable among many of the people that live there. When asked most of the employees said it was "All about the money".

Office Tiger CEO Joseph Sigelman

The Americans who started the company and those that work there, want to guide the Indians to become professional hard working employees like such in the American business world. In many cases in the documentary the CEO asked some employees why they weren't wearing there ties and to make sure that they are wearing them. In this business working hard is must or, as they said they will "weed out the under performers". I was surprised to see how much they emphasized on working hard. Working Saturdays and longer hours, working at home, and to live by the Office Tigers slogan, "We never sleep". Call center such as these like Office Tigers in India, are products of globalization. The employees are trained to work professionally like and with Western advanced countries. Like Drori explains, "We rely on technology to expedite human communication, thus exchanging more information, more intently and faster. Through e-technology we also extend our human networks into new spaces, thus establishing more contacts with more people and institutions" (Global E-Litisim, Drori). Office Tigers is a great example in which the company's value is based around using technology to outsource information across the globe, as quickly and efficiently as possible. In doing so, they have extensive training for each of the employees such as "having good English" and hope to turn English into the first language. They want the employees to develop the Indian professions into a Western business. As more advanced countries gain more power the developing countries are trying to copy those ideas so they to can gain power and develop. As Nakamura said, "The internet can be seen as part of the context of multimedia globalization, a fostering of a Western (as yet) cultural practice upon 'third world', minorities, and marginalized populations"(Cybertyping and the Work of Race in the Age of Digital Reproduction, Nakamura). The fact that we have technology and are able to globally communicate at anytime is useful, but also creates a digital divide. It separates those that are of higher class and with more money to those that have less money and do not have the resources to use technology to their advantage. Cultural imperialism is seen by the many developing countries who are influenced to be like the Western and most powerful countries. In the end the developing countries are always trying to catch up, as technology increasingly improves and changes. At first when we began Office Tigers I kept asking myself if this was suppose to be a good thing or a bad thing. The fact that these Indians are able to learn the Western culture and advance their lives is great, but I can't help but dislike the overall outcome of the exploitation of cheap labor in other countries. Advanced countries are able to take business globally (outsourcing) with the use of technology, around the world and get cheap labor to increase their global power and capital.

Defining Digital Culture Visually

http://www.pinterest.com/brookelarsenpbp/digital-culture/

I created a Pinterest Board to visually define Digital Culture. I picked a Pinterest board over doing it on a sheet of paper because I think a website in itself defines digital culture more than a sheet of paper could. The images and captions provide an understanding and clear visual to a person who might be unfamiliar with the idea of and meaning behind Digital Culture. In our world today we go about living through the digital culture without actually taking a step back and truly identifying and analyzing what society is like today.

Bolg 3: Filter Bubbles

I never realized how much our search engines impact what we are looking at. I knew that they were starting to become more personalized, but after watching the TEDtalk where Eli Pariser's discusses how filter bubbles are shaping online interactions and space, it got me thinking. It really became clear to me how much the filter bubble does differientate between different users based on what the search engine thinks the user would want to see. I find this unfair and very tacticle. I believe in the beginning search engines such as google and yahoo probably meant for the intention to be a helpful tactic, but like most ways dealt in the United States they took the idea to a whole other level. The filter bubble may be trying to show the user what it thinks it would want to see, but there is a huge chance the user doesn't get provided for what they are looking for. In a self selected filter bubble, such as wearing headphones in a crowd, the indiviudal is making the choice to seperate themselves with what is going on around them. The online filter bubble doesn't let the user make the choice of what they want to see, instead they are editing things out. Advertisements and marketing have been using the "personalized tactics" for a while now. Notice that when you are on your social media, or any site for that matter, the advertisements on the pages correlate exactly with what you have been looking at previously or things that relate to you in some way. I think that is why Pariser is telling us to "beware". Every host is starting to sweeping the web with personalizations. We are moving into the world where the internet is showing us "what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see." There is important information and knowledge that were are failing to recieve because of our filter bubble. We are getting our own unique information from online, but we don't decide what gets in and we dont see what is getting edited out. People are being manipulated for their freedom to roam the internet about anything they want, not just what the filter bubble wants to show you. The filter bubble algorithm does not have "embedded ethics" as Eli shares.. They are not keyed to relevance and do not challenge our ideas. People need a good flow of information and control on the internet. The internet should be introducing us to new perspectives and ideas, but if we are isolated we don't get the opportunity to connect with our world and the people in it.

 As a single individual there is not a lot I can do to ameliorate filter bubbles. I think that if everyone were more knowledgeable about filter bubbles then it would be more impactful. As individuals people could start looking up things more broader relative, and more unlike themselves to maybe get more range of choices. On a group scale, if people complained enough about filter bubbles to where search engines would realize how they could be troubling, then they might stop making them so personalized and be how they use to be.

The internet is our virtual campfire in which we hear the stories and information that help us shape our own personal views and beliefs and connect with others. Today, instead of gathering around a campfire, we gather around televisions, cellphones, and laptops. Our time together is now spent with technology instead of a campfire, and living in a world through technology. We are receiving information mainly through technology instead of the old days, where we read books and heard things orally. It is out new communication system, and we should not be given tailored information to enable our minds of new ideas and knowledge.

The filter bubble definitely fits into the digital divide we discussed in class. The algorithm could edit out certain people on your social networking, forcing you to only interact with certain groups or people the online host wants you to. If only people are interacting with those similar to them, then that can pose a huge diverse issue. We need to be open to new people, perspectives, and ideas but based off the filter bubble we are limited to being diverse, and the more diverse and willingness to take in all sides and people, the better!

Blog 2: Digital Nation Unflattening our Discourses on Technology

          Clifford Nass argues that "people who chronically multitask show an enormous range of deficits" (Nass, 2013). People are easily distracted and think they can multitask when it actually is harder for people to focus when switching back and forth between tasks. He created a study where he split up subjects in two groups; those who consistently do a lot of multitasking and those who do not. The research suggested that, "individuals who frequently use multiple media approach fundamental can multitask information-processing activities differently than do those who consume multiple media streams much less frequently...... those who infrequently multitask are more effective at volitionally allocating their attention in the face of distractions" (Ophir, Nass, Wagner, 2009). I do agree with Nass and believe that people think they are good at multitasking, yet all of this data and evidence proves otherwise. I think that our brains are very good at letting us think we can go back and forth between tasks so quickly, but our brains our amazing and quick, yet that does not mean they are necessarily all efficient at times. In psychology I learned that only part of your brain is actually paying attention to one thing at a time, that our brains just switch quickly back and forth between what we are doing. Take listening to music while doing homework as an example. You have headphones in your ears to hear the music, and you have a book in front of you with a paper and pen to write your thoughts on your assignment. You write a few sentences down, then mouth along to the words to the song your listening to then go back to writing. Your not listening to the music while you are writing down and reading, you are just quickly switching back and forth with your motors to pay attention to what is most important at that time.           

          I think in the era we are in now, we definitely our "distracting ourselves to death" with the obsession that everyone has with their technology. The media and the constant urge to always want to be "connected" with the world has absorbed into the lifestyles of most people. I feel that a lot of what people find important are materialistic problems or half the time deal with someone else's life that one may be involved in. If you just look around be are absorbed in their phones everywhere you go. Now a days, it is hard to even go to restaurant without seeing everyone on their phones while eating. The amount of distractions are increasing everyday. Digital media has made people far more distracted today, then previous forms of media. It use to be that people would grab the newspaper in the morning to read and catch up with that is going on in the world. Now, people are checking their multiple social media accounts, emails, news sites, apps, etc. on the regular throughout their day.    

          The concept of "Always On" is the continual obsession with connection to technology. There are always distractions of technology wherever you go. People sleep with their phones, take them wherever they go, and are ALWAYS on them. When I use to play on a sports team every time we would get a quick water break, girls would use that time to check their phone and respond to people. Was it really that important that they had to be distracted from getting water and stray away from focusing on what was going on at practice? The concept "Always On" is taken for granted because it is so much easier and faster now to find information and communicate, so we make sure we are ALWAYS connected.           

          In Nass' statement, "we cannot possibly multitask, the sociological literature proves this," he misses important dimensions about people lives in regard to gender, race, sex, or class. We are able to make identities and personal profiles that may not actually identify with our 'reality' identity. We can choose to be whatever persona we want to be on the internet and say whatever we want (for the most part). And being able to choose the identity you want to be is more appealing and easier than real life, so people may want to only 'live' through that way. People are loosing how to socialize because they are losing the face-to-face connections with people due to the importance of using technology. Of course we have many distractions and I am sure that social skills have assisted into creating multitasking.I think multitasking is associated with technology because of how many things there are now. Technology is hurting people's social skills, which can hurt them in the future when people want jobs. Our culture has become a cyber culture and everything, especially in the US, is dependent on digital technology. 

This video I put with my blog shows you an exaggerated version of multitasking only without so much using technology. I think it is pretty funny, yet somewhat true. 
http://youtu.be/Aey2kG6Ad8k

Blog 1: Why Study 'the Internet'?

Foot contends that it is important to archive and preserve the bits of content and the experimental dimension of site interactions online to understand cyber culture through web sphere analysis. Web sphere analysis is an analysis of the relations between the producers and users of the web materials mediated between the structure of website's links and hyperlinks. She explains that the methodology in creating web sphere analysis involves identifying the objects or themes related to the web sites, to apprehend the hyperlink context, and archive the metadata with some periodicity of present and past analysis. I think it would be very difficult to extend this methodology for web sphere analysis to social media sites. First off, although social media is composed of many hyperlinks and links between personal profiles, it would be challenging to conduct interviews with all the producers and users in the social media web sphere and in turn hard to retrieve data to analyze. Also, a website page dominantly focuses on a topic, whereas social media sites are combined views, interests, opinions, etc. of multiple topics which one may express through words, videos, audio, or pictures. The hash tag, as found on twitter, or the @ sign, used in most social media to directly interact with another user, create easy ways to connect and interact with another and find similarities with common hash tags and links posted. But this poses a problem in web sphere analysis. Users can make up hash tags that are irrelevant. Then that information is no longer useful and the data is derived into another form of interaction investigation through the web. The link, which Foot explains to be the "essence of the web", becomes very complicated through the social networking service. The whole dynamic and structure of social media sites are through hyperlinks and connecting with other users on the sites. It is not a page based up political, economical, beliefs, etc. like used as the archives of information for the 9/11 example Foot used. The whole dynamic of web sphere analysis is changed through SNS when it becomes a system of links and personal interests. Also, personal profiles make it difficult to analyze interactions due to permanency. With SNS I do not think there would be certainty in viewing content later if needed to find it, creating complications for web sphere analysis.

Comparing the study between Foot's web sphere analysis of post-9/11 production and the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing I predict would be very similar in that many people would be a high percentage of a personal producer. Both reactions were both very startling and unsettling and would bring a lot of people to want to voice their feelings and expressions. I think that the Boston Marathon bombing would probably have a higher percentage overall in the producer being a personal user because it is more prevalent to have your own page or site of some sort than it would have in 2001. I would think that more people interacted on the web to deal and cope with the tragedy of the bombing and SNS played a major role in venting peoples emotions. In the past year, it has become a norm to interact and communicate solely through the web. When something is blown up on social media, everyone has something to say about it, and they can, through SNS. I think their would be more people on their own social media sites then there would be on government and news sites when enabling expression.

Introduction

Hi, my name is Brooke Larsen and this is my first blog! I created this blog for my class AMST 475, digital diversity. I took this class for my tier lll credit and thought it would be really interesting and relevant to what is going on in the world. I am a junior at Washington State University going for a major in General Studies focusing on communication, business, and sociology. My hometown is on the west side of Washington where most of my loving family is. I am an outgoing and open minded person who is anxious to learn new things. I love living a healthy lifestyle and enjoy sports and being active. Go Hawks!!