This post is really about social capital–the very real and practical value that we gain from our relationships with other people. The most obvious example of how social capital operates is in the job market: quite often, the people that you know determine the quality of job you can get. This is also true for university and professional school admissions: if your dad is best friends with the dean of admissions at a law school, your chances of admission are probably going to be better than they would be otherwise.

Social capital can also manifest itself in more subtle ways. Having a social network with experts in a variety of different fields can bring to your attention knowledge that would otherwise be hidden, for example. Or being closely related to an attorney can come in handy in all sorts of ways, including little things like having minor legal questions answered.

The importance of social capital is a major reason why Ivy League schools are so competitive; even if you could get a comparable formal education elsewhere, the connections that four years at Harvard or Yale afford you make these schools an exceptionally attractive choice. Social capital, in other words, is a major determinant of success in many, many spheres of life.

Unfortunately, it is also one of the major drivers of inequality. Much of our social capital is inherited — the schools we attend, the towns where we grow up, and the social standing of our parents determine, to a large extent, our social networks. If you grow up in a working class family and a working class town, you are almost certainly going to interact with other working class people. The value of your social network is probably going to be far, far less than that of your prep school peers.

It is precisely because of this difference that social mobility will almost always be limited, even when purely economic factors are taken into consideration. As long as people self-sort along class lines, making $80,000 a year while living in a blue collar social sphere will always be categorically different for yourself and your children than making $80,000 a year as an Ivy-educated lawyer.

So how does any of this relate to this post or blog? Well, that goes back to the story I mentioned in the beginning. A few weeks ago, I received a message on Facebook from an old college friend. As it turns out, he is now working for a firm that was in the market for SEO. He was wondering if my company might be a good match. As it turns out, we are, and it looks like his firm will be hiring us.

In this example, Facebook wasn’t just a way for him to contact me. He is a person that I haven’t spoken with in college, and I doubt I would have had any contact with him otherwise. Because of a status update I posted, he checked my profile and saw where I worked, then Googled my company, and realized that a business connection could be made.

It’s easy to view this story through the lens of social media evangelism. You could easily say that the lesson here is that new communication technologies enabled a connection that previously would not have existed. And that is undeniably true (thanks, Facebook!).

But to end the discussion there would be to ignore a troubling element of social media. Because the fact of the matter is that this connection was only possible because I happened to attend a particular college. And I only went to that college because of the high school I attended (my college was recommended by a full-time faculty member whose sole responsibility was matching students with colleges). In turn, I was only able to attend this (private) high school only because my parents were able to send me there, and so on.

The point of all of this is to suggest that social media is valuable as a tool for storing and extending existing social capital. Had that connection not existed before I got this job, I wouldn’t be writing this post. I got value from a social network site because I had established value in my social network. And the value in my social network was attributable to much more than my own efforts.

Of course, I only mentioned this story to illustrate this broader point. As we’ve seen with social network sites, people don’t primarily use social media (or more broadly, the internet) to make new connections. Instead, people use social media to extend and store existing social capital.

Thus, the value that people can gain from social media is a function of the value that exists in their social network. Given the disparity of social network value across class lines, this all suggests that social media will comfort the comfortable far more than the afflicted. It has the potential to exacerbate existing inequality.

To my eyes, that’s absolutely not a good thing.

My new job is in Search Engine Optimization, and I’ve been learning way too much to digest all at once. Please stay tuned, because all of this is providing a lot of ideas for future posts, notably how the architecture of Google affects how we learn about our world as individuals and as a society.

(Spoiler alert: hypothetical access to limitless information is not the same thing as a ‘marketplace of information’. In other words, I have a much clearer idea of what this whole project has basically been about).

• “They’re all crooks…”
• “Liberals just want…”
• “Conservatives are…”
• “It’s just common sense!”
• “Hello, my name is Richard Dawkins”
• “South Park is really good satire”
• “That’s what they want you to believe.”
• “Do you know the truth about Scientology?”
• “ACORN!”
• “Government meddling”
• “Atlas Shrugged”
• “The Second Amendment” (without acknowledging “a well-organized militia…”)
• “States’ rights”
• “(political opponent) is a LIAR!”
• Lame, capitalized puns (“BUllSHit”, “TAXachussetts”)

Something caught my eye in the latter article, this phrase (italics mine): “presented her controversial work … on June 30 at the Personal Democracy Forum”

“Controversial?”, I naively thought, “surely anybody interested enough in social dynamics online to have heard of danah boyd wouldn’t find the work controversial. That’s a poor choice of words.”

And then I looked into the comments. As is unfortunately to be expected on the internet, they ran the full gamut from actively racist to misinformed to ‘why does this matter?’ Although we always have to be aware of the self-selection bias when extrapolating anything from blog comments, the responses demonstrate some unfortunate truths:

• Many people are unable to recognize that their own experience says nothing about larger reality. A lot of the posts are in the form of “I have lots of black friends of Facebook”
• Many respondents failed to understand that the particular sites they use are a function of their social network, stating features of the sites that they ‘prefer’… Despite the fact the boyd points out that such notions are just rationalizations on that very page.
• In general, people fail to understand that racial and class disparities are problematic even when they are disconnected from a prejudiced, ‘racist’ person. Institutional racism and structural disparity are apparently beyond the understanding of the average person.
• Very few people understand the difference between access to technology and the complicated set of factors that determine use and proficiency with those technologies.

None of these observations are new to these articles, but the comment sections are a good (if somewhat despiritng) reminder of how bad of a guide personal experience and ‘common sense’ can be.

While it may be more logical to start from the ground up before explaining my conclusions, I want to come out with full disclosure and say that my purpose in this is to argue in favor of DRM (at least in principle). My views stand in stark opposition to a loosely-defined set of ideas commonly found on various parts of the internet, notably on TechDirt.

Most succinctly, I take the view that information and knowledge are not the same.

Information

Information can most easily be understood as ‘raw’ data: a set of instructions, patterns, or numbers that exist outside of human interaction. A digital file, program, or the words printed in a book constitute information. Information can be utilized by machines to engage in automated processes, such as displaying an image or moving a robot. In a somewhat similar manner, humans can interpret information and process it in various ways. However, in order for that information to enter human consciousness and effect or be effected by that human, it must first be converted into knowledge.

Knowledge

Knowledge is the psychological or cognitive experience of information. Unlike information interacting with a machine, our acquisition, interpretation, and use of knowledge is entirely dependent on the physiological structure of the brain as well as the knowledge we have accumulated in the past. My subjective experience of the statement 2 + 2 = 4, for example, depends on my recognition of each of the symbols involved, an understanding of syntax, and knowledge of basic arithmetic.

Each of these pieces (or rather, patterns) of knowledge is unique to me. Whereas two computers with the same hardware can fairly be said to understand such statements equally, my experience of the statement is fundamentally different than that of anyone else.

In far more complex operations, such as the interpretation of political events, interpersonal relationships, complex philosophical ideas, etc., the differences between the subjective experience of information (that is, ‘knowledge’) between any two people will grow. Even if our experiences of the color blue are more or less the same, our experience of Atlas Shrugged will be undoubtedly extremely different.

Intellectual Property

This difference is important in understanding the validity of DRM because it highlights what the restriction on the use of media is really about. While opponents of the DRM see such technologies as limiting the distribution of information, the methods for encryption actually allow content owners and creators to restrict the distribution of the products of the creators’ knowledge. As a practical and legal matter, this knowledge has been commodified as intellectual property.

In other words, DRM technologies are designed to control the use of distribution of intellectual property (commodified knowledge).

A common argument against DRM is rooted in the belief that the technologies rob consumers of ownership of information. This is a confusion that exists only because digital distribution has made the legal distinction between a license to experience intellectual property and the ownership of intellectual property obvious to the consumer in a way that was hidden before.

When intellectual property and tangible items were experienced in the same form–when information and intellectual property came in the form of a book, newspaper, or recording–the distinctions between licensee and owner were invisible. Because the consumer had purchased a physical item, most assumed that they ‘owned’ the knowledge contained therein (the ‘book’, ‘paper’, ‘album’). Yet that was never the case; ownership of the intellectual property was held by the creator (generally the individual, group, or entity responsible for the generation and expression of knowledge). Purchasing a CD was always an exchange of money for a license to experience its intellectual property in a private setting.

The necessity of physical storage acted as its own form of rights management. Because it was impractical (or impossible with high-fidelity) to duplicate and distribute physical objects (at least before the age of personal computers), no further action was needed to protect the rights of the content owner to license and distribute the music as she pleased.

DRM then, is not based on a new idea, and in no way does it change the fundamental relationship between rights owner and consumer.  It is instead a new, more visible manifestation of an existing regime.

The Legitimacy of Commodifying Knowledge

Another argument that one could make against DRM is that simply because rights management has existed does not mean that it ought to exist. Such a ‘free information’ position argues that there ought to be no restriction on information of any type; that it should flow freely from and to whomever cares to access it. In its strong form, proponents have argued that commodifying information is immoral and may constitute limitations of freedom itself.

Yet if we believe that property rights are legitimate for tangible object, it is hard to argue that the same principle should not apply to intellectual property. Because intellectual property is knowledge, rather than information, its creation requires human effort in a way that is fundamentally the same as physical labor.

To reiterate, intellectual property is not merely information, it is a product of human labor; thus, ownership and control of knowledge is (in principle) entirely legitimate.

Practical Problems

Moving from theory to reality, it is obvious that DRM technologies in their current state can pose legitimate obstacles to consumers. For one, certain types of media are non-transferrable. If a consumer purchases a license to view a film, for instance, she should be allowed to view it on different devices. Many forms of DRM currently do not allow this: because allowing consumers to create standard digital copies of a DVD also allows them to control distribution of that intellectual property, many studios prefer to encode and encrypt such files?

But what about the consumer who just wants to view a film on her iPod? Until recently, she had been out of luck. Yet studios are beginning to include restricted digital copies of films with the purchase of a DVD, allowing the consumer to experience intellectual property in different forms.

The lesson here is that there is a difference between DRM in principle and technical limitations of existing forms of DRM. I do not mean to argue that DRM in its current state is perfect, simply that the ability to own and control intellectual property is as legitimate as the ownership of any private property. With advances in technology, the particular problems of any particular implementation of DRM can be minimized or avoided altogether.

Compulsion and Freedom

As a final note, I want to make it clear that both DRM and something like the GNU Public License can very easily coexist. The ability to control one’s intellectual property inherently requires the ability to relinquish that control. None of what I have argued should be construed to say that creators ought to utilize DRM in any of their works. I often use software under a Creative Commons license, and am willing to share most anything I create under the same. Yet I believe that it is absolutely vital to allow other creators to decide if they prefer to have ownership of the fruits of their intellectual labor for themselves.

Essentially, Arduino is a simple standalone computer that you can use to control pretty much any type of electronic device. Of particular interest to me are lighting capabilities offered by LEDs. And while I’m sure that I’m very, very far from being able to do this, I hope to sometime build something like this.

I have never been much of a tinkerer (I was never into Legos or the like as a kid), and I’m hoping that the experience will help open my mind to the physical world. Focusing on the actual creation and implementation of ideas is something that I’ve always struggled to do, so hopefully this will get me going in the right direction.

Most importantly, I want to make a bad-ass Daft Punk costume.

I’ve got a few project ideas lined up already, but I was hoping to get some ideas from anyone who reads this. So if you have an idea, let me know. Here’s what I have in mind so far:

• Easy, generic ‘learning project’s: controlling LEDs, interfacing with buttons, switches, knobs, etc.
• Intelligent mood lighting: using my computer to control wall-facing LEDs to change the perceived color of a room
• Universal remote: using my iPhone/iPod Touch to turn on/off TV, change channels, volume, other basic functions
• Lethal, ruthless, efficient killing machines: self-explanatory
• Laser Harp!: This seems extraordinarily complex, but check out how awesome it is

The whole process has already gotten me thinking about things posts for the future, mostly about how modularity and scalability remove barriers between thought and design, but I’m saving these for a later date.

I hope that you noticed that every other paragraph in this post starts with the word “I” (until this paragrpah, this was an unintentional result of poor writing, but symmetry is pretty sweet, right?). Leave some suggestions or comments below.

Fetish commodities are peculiar on both economic and psychosocial levels. Economically, they are valuable not because they have intrisic useful qualities, but because they are simply perceived or judged to be valuable by a particular group. Yet that value, social psychologists assure us, is at least in part due to (economically) irrational factors–emotional attachment and the knee-jerk reaction to scarcity chief among them.

But simply because a behavior (even an economic behavior) is technically irrational doesn’t mean that it is wrong in any logical or moral sense. After all, there are some very convincing arguments to be made that much desirable behavior, such as altruism, is irrational.

So while it’s probably a good idea to withhold blanket judgments on fetish commodities,  it is worth investigating whether fetishists can have any appreciable effect on society.

I mention all of this with two particular commodities in mind: vinyl records and books. Both have certain fetishistic qualities: they have large collectors of communities, are valued as possessions rather than containers of information, and have can gain exorbinant value simply by becoming scarce. However, both contain actual use-value: vinyl records have higher fidelity than other formats (at least according to audophiles–I can only tell the difference in mono recordings), and there are certain qualities of books (the ability to easily mark pages and take notes) that have yet to be replicated by digital technology.

Given the mixture of fetish and actual value in these items, what can we make of those resistant to changing technology? Are those who insist on listening to vinyl LPs and reading first editions of books Luddites or conoisseurs? Are they maintaining value traditions or standing in the way of Progress?

The answer to these questions is “yes”. Depending on how one views the situation, they might be red-eyed fetishists who have mistakenly placed spiritual power into pragmatic objects, or they are clear-eyed appreciators of finer things.

Yet I believe that such questions are, ultimately, irrelevant (at least in the big picture). Because regardless of the value one places on a physical record, digital music distribution is far more convenient for the masses, and the eventual fading-away of vinyl will happen. Sure, dedicated communities may continue to covet records, but for most people, iPods are far more desirable. (Interestingly, musicologists have begun to note that college students are beginning to prefer the lower-fidelity sound of MP3s to vinyl–but more on that in a moment). While leather-bound books may have their own pleasures, the convenience and added features of eBooks will surely have the same effect.

Ultimately, the question of whether one form of media is ‘better’ than another is impossible to answer. I mentioned the fact that college students are now beginning to prefer MP3 versions of the exact same recording on vinyl, a sacreligious idea to many, to suggest that our attachment to what is familiar is often just that. It wasn’t long ago that true music snobs were horrified by the very idea of recorded music, which couldn’t possibly capture the full meaning of live performance. Pre-literate poets and trubadours were furious about written language, and scholars and calligraphers were blindsided by Gutenberg. So it is with vinyl junkies and (physical) book lovers.

Every change in technology brings with it some positive and some negative aspects. So we should recognize that much of our attachment to physical media is a love of the familiar, as our criteria for judgment is more tied to technological specifics than we would like to believe.

Of course, being a technophile carries with it opposite and equal problems, but that’s a subject for another post…

But one of the entries in particular stood out to me: Leo Burnett. Burnett, if you aren’t familiar, was the founder of one of the largest ad companies in the world, appropriately named Leo Burnett Worldwide, which is headquartered right here in lovely downtown Chicago.

During his career, he created icons like the Marlboro Man and Tony the Tiger and, in the process, revolutionized the entire field of advertising. Without exaggeration, he was truly a creative genius.

Yet I couldn’t help but wonder how much of his success was really due to creative talent, as being a successful artist and being an influential communicator are two wholly different things. Was his true talent in creating images, or in recognizing that the time had come when creating images was a viable marketing tool? While there can be no doubt that images have always had, and always will have, a special power over the human mind, it is doubtful that they could have really been successfully mass-marketed without the technology of the late industrialized world.

So if a person possessed his mind in the Victorian age, would we know her name? Setting aside the obvious–that of course she would almost certainly not be a business success at that time–we can still fairly conclude that it is unlikely. We need to recognize that creativity alone isn’t enough; talent does not exist in a vacuum, and the media of any time and place are centrally important factors in determining the success of communicators of all stripes.

Stuart Ewen, who wrote the Time piece, recognizes therein that many of Burnett’s methods and icons are a bit anachronistic by today’s standards. Yet Ewen suggests that this is due to the consumer zeitgeist–we are all just too jaded to embrace such simplistic imagery. While that I agree with that point, I want to add that there’s a broader lesson to take from all this. As Marshall McLuhan first recognized, the audience, communicator, and message are all secondary to the structure of communication. In this context, it’s clear that Burnett was so successful not simply because he created memorable images, but because he lived and worked in a period when technology (esp. mass media) made creating memorable images viable, valuable, and revolutionary.

The world we live in today isn’t really like that. Although I suggested that images hold a special place in the human mind, it seems that our emerging media don’t easily lend themselves to the top-down manufacture of such images. While Burnett lived in a time when specific institutions (CBS, NBC, ABC) where massively influential in shaping our images of the world, we live in a fractured media environment. Seats of influence are more widely distributed, making it more difficult to create singular images.

While I disagree with the thesis that social media represent anything resembling a democratization of influence, I do believe that they constitute a fundamentally different architecture of communication. And this new structure is creating an opening for the next Leo Burnett. This person will have to combine creative genius with a truly revolutionary understanding of the nature of our new communication. She will recognize, unlike her contemporaries, how to exploit our media to alter our behavior. Maybe she’ll see that the key to doing so is to create images in a new, revolutionary way; or maybe she’ll recognize that creating images is neither appropriate nor effective in our new media ecology. Perhaps she’ll ‘fix’ advertising, but maybe she’ll abandon it. It’s conceivable that she’s already out there, solving this riddle as we speak, but we won’t recognize it until years from now.

But one thing seems clear: she won’t be Leo Burnett, because his genius was one of a time and place that has become obsolete.

So the Kindle isn’t so much a replacement for a book as much as it is a replacement for a bookstore, just as Apple realized that the iPod and iTunes should primarily replace record stores instead of the discman.

Using the Kindle reminds me of many conversations I’ve had with my parents about the differences in our respective college experiences. To this day, I can’t imagine what doing research–let alone typing papers–must have been like before computers were commonplace. As a member of one of the very first cohorts to not really live through school without computers, I can no better imagine having to use a (physical) card catalog and typewriter than relying on a horse and carriage to get around.

This has undoubtedly shaped every aspect of my life, in such a wide variety of ways that it’d be absolutely impossible to understand them all. But I believe that we are in the beginning of another revolution, which while it might not have the same impact on our daily lives is nonetheless fascinating.

While I can’t be certain, it seems probable that Blu-Ray discs are going to be the last physical medium developed for sharing video content. And the same is probably true for all other forms of data. Just as the first iPod was the first nail in the coffin for compact discs, e-books are suggesting the end of the book (at least as a relevant, primary source of reading long-form content).

We are right at the cusp of a future where the notion that information came on ‘things’ will seem as quaint and silly and unimaginable as the telegraph today. Maybe it will take five years, maybe five decades, but in short order, children will struggle to comprehend what it meant for information to be stored on a thing, and not delivered instantly over the internet. The idea that people had to go to a place to get a thing to have access to information of any kind will be ridiculous to them.

In short, we are finally starting to see the promise of the internet in a real, meaningful, and life-altering way. This isn’t IRC, or DOS, or the ability to send e-mail with text around the world. This isn’t some people having a portal at their work, school, or home that can connect them to certain information.

This is an always-on, always-on-your-person, instant connection to all information in the world.

This is awesome, in the truest sense of the word.