tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1722739935866347689.post6015715297409737941..comments2024-03-02T02:29:50.610-06:00Comments on digital interface: Social media is a fact of life for social movementsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12426121849176039989noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1722739935866347689.post-62125536245576998452013-03-20T21:18:54.051-05:002013-03-20T21:18:54.051-05:00When using social media marketing, you may have to...When using social media marketing, you may have to adjust and refresh your objective and goals on a regular basis, so that you can stay on target. The conversations may take your marketing down unexpected paths. <a href="http://www.primeview.com/social-media-marketing/" rel="nofollow">social media marketing arizona</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12479493710748082569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1722739935866347689.post-29914879531343446342013-02-07T21:23:13.271-06:002013-02-07T21:23:13.271-06:00Thanks for responding, Evgeny! I'm quite famil...Thanks for responding, Evgeny! I'm quite familiar with Latour's actor-network theory, which quite clearly does have a stake in the network/hierarchy fight. It's curious you would appeal to it in this context, when it would appear to fully support my position. <br /><br />I'm quite disappointed to see you backpedaling from the substantive theoretical issues at play in your piece; your article becomes a lot less interesting if we take you to be avoiding those issues just to beat up on Johnson's naive view. Presumably your views will have to at some point take seriously the substantive and novel contributions that network theory does bring to the debate. <br /><br />I mean, otherwise it is a crowd of know-nothings gossiping to each other. Surely that's not helping. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12426121849176039989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1722739935866347689.post-12907285274708967932013-02-07T21:02:07.741-06:002013-02-07T21:02:07.741-06:00Interesting critique but I think you fundamentally...Interesting critique but I think you fundamentally misread both my motivation and the thrust of my remarks. "Internet-centrism" is just a way of thinking about digital technologies - an episteme of sorts - that lumps (often unthinkingly and uncritically) contemporary digital technologies under the label of "the Internet." Not only does this label have a rich and poorly understood history - it also smuggles in all sorts of cultural, political, and intellectual assumptions through the backdoor. It's those assumptions, in turn, that get folks like Johnson miss certain features of projects they are describing while focusing on other features. I have no interest - or motivation - to defend hierarchies as being always superior to networks. There are contexts when this is the case and we need to know them. What I was trying to say in the essay is that Johnson's Internet-centrism blinds him to the productive role of hierarchies EVEN IN CASES WHERE THEY PLAYED AN IMPORTANT POSITIVE ROLE (ditto the destructive role of networks in other cases). This argument may be a bit hard to understand without reading up more on my attack on the idea of the "Internet" (to appear in my forthcoming book published next month). In the meantime, it might be useful to look through some of Latour's writings (maybe this early paper with Callon would help: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/388) <br /><br />So, once again, my critique of Johnson is not meant to be an original contribution to debates about networks/hierarchies; I have no dog in that fight. Rather, it's a contribution to debates about how different ways of organizing reality - of assuming "the Internet" or positing some other way of talking about digital technologies - affect how we think, how we talk, and how we act. In other words, I'm only interested in debates about networks/hierarchies in as much as they feature - mediated by Internet-centric outlook - in Johnson's work. Evgeny Morozovhttp://evgenymorozov.comnoreply@blogger.com