This week, I’m going to try to focus on the big picture, although once again, I have to say that doing so is no easy task. This is partly due to the fact that we have not read the body of literature that Cohen is contributing to, but I stand by my criticism of the way in which this book was written.
From what I could piece together, Cohen’s argument in the second half of the book was premised on the idea that we need a new way of thinking about network architecture that takes into account emerging social and institutional patterns. In doing so, Cohen suggests that we focus on the everyday practices of individual users particularly how users experience information networks and resources. Only after understanding the user experience should we tinker with the network architecture. There are three components of network architecture that capture Cohen’s attention: first, the accessibility of networks from the user’s perspective; second, the emergence of architecture of control that alters the “experienced accessibility” of the network’s resources and spaces; and third, regimes of authorization that may inhibit the play of everyday practice.
The penultimate chapter takes up these issues and proposes that there are three conditions necessary to human flourishing in a networked world:
(1) Access to Knowledge
This is a basic component and the one that Cohen spends the least time on, in part because this condition seems to be widely accepted. Her point, though, is that access alone is not enough—human flourishing is not protected if you stop here.
(2) Operational Transparency
Cohen advocates disclosure of critical components of a network’s structure and organization so that individuals will know how the network might be affecting their own experience and using the information they provide to it. As such, Cohen suggests that we require disclosure of surveillance processes and what she calls the “geographies of accessibility” (which I take to mean the things that are and are not accessible to the everyday user on the network). Finally, she suggests that networks be required to disclose the process by which they set general network standards, the assumption being that transparency of process will either improve the end-product or at least make users aware of when the product is likely to be unsavory.
(3) Semantic Discontinuity
I had a hard time understanding this argument, but Cohen’s suggestion seems to be that some things should be left purposefully vague to allow for users to experience a spectrum of institutional and technical frameworks. By this view, seamlessness, continuity, and rationality are not virtues; rather, they stifle opportunity for play. In three subdivisions of the section, Cohen further argued that copyright protection be narrowed to allow for an increased scope of lawful personal use, that attention be paid to difference in individual and group boundary management, and finally that greater scope be given to play (lest it be lumped together with piracy).
I don’t find anything particularly objectionable about the first and second conditions above. If our end goal is to think about the user’s experience on a network and come up with network structures that prioritize that experience, access and transparency are certainly virtues.
I’m a little more hesitant when it comes to Cohen’s idea of semantic discontinuity. For one, as I mentioned above, I’m not sure entirely what the term means. If I’m right in thinking that it means we should make a conscious attempt to create networks where users’ rights and network boundaries are be left undefined and ambiguous, then I’m inclined to disagree. Users are better served by clarity and consistency both within and across the networks they interact with. Seamlessness, continuity, and predictability lower the costs for users who are not tech savvy and who are dependent on their networks rather than committed to the kind of boundary-pushing play that Cohen praises. Cohen’s argument, it seems, is that all the world’s a playground, and all its men and women merely children. In doing so, it seems to me that Cohen is prioritizing a segment of network users at the expense of everyone else.
Comments