INTERNET R.I.P. Pelle Snickars, KB
Media experts still talk as if the Internet is new, as if it is still evolving, as if it will shortly change everything. They tell us that the Web will let us build super networks (The Wealth of Networks), organize ourselves in magical ways (Here Comes Everbody)... transform our economy (Wikinomics)... or perhaps even destroy our culture (The Cult of the Amateur).
the internet changes everything
the internet changes nothing
New Media
... it s time to face facts. The Internet is not new anymore. It s twenty years old. Commercial television was roughly two decades old in 1970; it was an established medium. No one then heralded TV as a revolutionary new technology. The Internet is not maturing. It is mature. TV s programming and business models were rock solid in 1970; the new line up was always the old line up slightly modified. No one speculated seriously about any radical new broadcast TV format. Finally, the Internet has not changed everything. TV too was supposed to change everything. It didn t. Rather, it altered what we did with our time.
Digitalisering = mediehistoriens slut?
The term new is... surprisingly uninterrogated. Those debunking the newness of new media often write as if we could all agree on or know the new, as if the new were not itself a historical category linked to the rise of modernity. The new should have no precedent, should break with the everyday...
The Internet was not new in 1995, the year it arguably became new. Its moment of newness coincided less with its invention or its mass usage... but rather with a political move to deregulate it and with increased coverage of it in other mass media. We accepted the Internet or new media as new because of a concerted effort to make it new, because of novels, films, television news programs, advertisements, and political debates that por trayed it as new, wondrous, strange.
> digitalisering / internet som mediehistoriskt brott
> d e t d i g i t a l a s o m slutgiltig lösning... och vad det i så fall egentligen innebär...
> mediehistorisk kontinuitet > digitalt imperativ > internet som modell > digitalt default (innovation)
1. the internet changes nothing everything
2-3. internet i fokus / internet-centrism
Sverige ska vara bäst i världen på att använda digitaliseringens möjligheter.
4. d i g i t a l t d e f a u l t, innovation & utveckling (mediehistoriens död)
> öppet & slutet
> vad driver teknologisk innovation & utveckling?
> i n t e r n e t f å r inte försvinna!
> mediehistorisk blindhet
> föreställningen om nätet som evig kommunikationsform
while the Internet might disrupt everything, it itself should never be disrupted. It's here to stay and we'd better work around it, discover its real nature, accept its features as given, learn its lessons, and refurbish our world accordingly.
perhaps we can't imagine life after the Internet because we don't think that the Internet is going anywhere. If the public debate is any indication, the finality of the Internet the belief that it's the ultimate technology and the ultimate network has been widely accepted. It's Silicon Valley's own version of the end of history.
Morozov har rätt i att den samtida n ä t d i s k u s s i o n e n ä r p å f a l l a n d e historielös. Det digitala imperativet gör att vi ständigt blickar framåt.
Teknologisk amnesi, menar han därför, är det mest utmärkande draget för dagens nätdebatt. Det är som om IT inte skulle ha en historia, eller omvänt som om nätet skulle ha evigt liv.
M e n ä v e n i n t e r n e t s o m kommunikationsform kommer n a t u r l i g t v i s a t t f ö r ä n d r a s, utmanövreras för att till sist försvinna.
Det är nämligen (och kanhända) den enda sanning som informationsteknologins historia lär oss. Därför är det också lätt bekymmersamt när många samhällsproblem (i enlighet med internet-centrismens logik) ska lösas med hjälp av en kommunikationsform som trots sin dödlighet förefaller att sitta inne med eviga svar.