The Information Age

Castells article No. 1: Castellas' idea of an informational economy seems to make more sense than the constant mention of a "service economy." Our economy may seem like it is based on services, but an informational economy is a better definition. I don't understand his point of differentiating between a global and world economy. He makes a point of explaining the global economy but not what the difference is. His point about unstable employment is worrisome, but I don't think it will be that drastic of a change. The idea of timeless time is an interesting one, and one I believe is a valid one, as time is no longer a barrier to work or anything else.

Castells article No. 2: It doesn't seem like the New Economy is all that new. The U.S. and the world economies have been shifting toward knowledge-based, innovation-based productivity growth for a long time already. The change into a globally interdependent financial market appears to be a good idea, but it would need a lot of factors to change for it to work, and I'm not sure those factors will ever change. Transactions just on the internet are fine, but countries agreeing on a financial market seems to be overly optimistic.

Garnham article: I agree with many of Garnham's criticisms of Castells' arguments, much of what needs to happen for his New Economy to work will be challenging at the very least. Technology would need to continue progressing at a quick rate and cultures would need to learn to live with each other. It seems like Castells' argument works in theory but would have a lot of problems in the real world. Too many exceptions (Germany and Japan to name two) exist. Especially in the end of class struggle section, Garnham makes some very influential criticisms of Castells.

Post-Industrial Society

Bell article: I agreed with part of this article, but the fact that it was written in 1973 made it extremely dated. The part about sectors of work and occupations was interesting and I'd like to see some of the statistics about the workforce today, but it many of the numbers now seem far too optimistic. While I agree that much of society is moving toward specialization and services, they seem to forget that we will almost certainly always need garbagemen, plumbers, and so forth, which wouldn't necessarily be a "highly trained working class." His section on the problems the U.S. will have as we move toward a post-industrial society also seems dated, as we have had no troubles seamlessly shifting further into a post-industrial society.

Kumar article: Kumar does not seem to give much of his own thoughts or opinions in the article, he just drops names and uses other people's ideas for pages at a time. Other than that, his thoughts on globalization are a little overly optimistic, but not completely out of the question. You can already see the effects now, as the lines between countries are being blurred, especially with the internet and other forms of communication. The idea that information technology will diminish paid work is kind of a frightening one, as that would hurt a lot of people.

Urry article: Urry's article was a very interesting one, especially since it gave an extreme counter-opinion to the Kumar and Bell articles. He seems like a very cynical person, but some of his criticisms are valid. His point about people being in service employment but not providing final services to the consumer was particularly intriguing. It was also interesting that he quoted the Communist Manifesto in reference to Britain. He also agrees with Kumar on the globalization issue.

Code Part II

Lessig wraps up the book quite nicely, coming back to the four modalities from part I of the book. In fact, he does a good job of keeping the same theme woven throughout the book. I especially liked the ending of the book where Lessig dismissed Declan's view that the government shouldn't do anything when it comes to cyberspace, as that is not realistic or practical.

Critics reaction

Winner article: To tell the truth, I did not understand much of this article, but many of the arguments he made I agree with. Turning everything that exists right now into a digital format is not practical. However, much like the advocates of the "information society," Winner did not have a large amount of evidence to support his claims, which were made in a fairly arrogant way.

Roszak article: At first glance at the text of the article and when it was published, it seems a bit out of date, as the Web hadn't even come close to being very public in 1986. Much of his arguments appear to be him holding onto the past and not wanting to change. Using Shannon's definition of "information" did not really help his argument, either, as that is a very simplified definition. Also, his analogy of the internet compared to the automobile, airplane, etc. does not really work, as they are completely different things.

Robins/Webster article: Many of the concerns about privacy and surveillance raised at the beginning of this article are similar to ones I have about an "information society" and ones that are popping up already in today's society. However, they use far too many buzzwords and do not define them well or at all, making the article difficult to wade through.

Advocates reactions

Masada article: While I agree with some of the things he says, I think he's a little too idealistic/optimistic. He portrays the information society almost as a utopia, where everyone is working for the common good and no selfishness is involved. While that would be nice, it's not exactly practical, I think a merging of the information society and industrial society would be better than just an information society.

Leadbeater article: His section on finance capitalism is interesting in that he lists a myriad of problems with globalization but still believes it to be a good thing. He seems to have the knowledge and social capital things down, they appear to be sound arguments. I don't think knowledge is the end-all, be-all of human existence, so I disagree with the last part of his essay.

Cyberspace and the American Dream article: The idea that cyberspace would be able to get rid of government and bureaucracy seems kind of ludicrous to me. And as in the other two articles, the authors seem to be discounting human nature, the selfishness and constant self-interest that people live by. There will always be people going against the "common good."

Intro reaction

The whole idea of an "information society" is an interesting, although slightly frightening concept. It is good that we have access to so much information and media, but the misuse of this newfound access is already running rampant with identity theft and other things.

As far as the "digital divide" goes, I believe the critics are right when they say it will "trickle down" to the poorer citizens.

Zach Kukkonen

Intro reaction

The whole idea of an "information society" is an interesting, although slightly frightening concept. It is good that we have access to so much information and media, but the misuse of this newfound access is already running rampant with identity theft and other things.

As far as the "digital divide" goes, I believe the critics are right when they say it will "trickle down" to the poorer citizens.