Dritte Version, hier steht der Text, usw. Dann kommt eine Fußnote, hier ist sie also. [1]
VERSION 2
The mythologization of technology that takes place in the speech acts does not imply that how the
‘really works’ is hidden, but merely the ability to automatically associate certain images with certain signification in an absolute manner. To follow on from Roland Barthes, the mythologization of our smart technologies removes the history of intelligent systems, smartness, ubiquitousness, openness, and so forth, from the linguistic act. Just as we do not question that Einstein’s famous equation, and equations more generally, are keys to knowledge – as Barthes describes – intelligent systems for smart cities, state security, logistics, and so on suddenly appear absolute.1 Along with openness, participation and other techno myths, ‘smartness’ appears as an algorithmic reality we cannot question.
However, all techno myths should be seen as expressions of how we want the world to be, rather than what it really is. In order to perform an interface criticism, we do not need to discuss if the technologies are true or false – for the smart techniques of data mining, machine learning, and so forth, obviously work – but we need to realize that their myths are also part of our reality. As Philip Agre has noted, we subject our actions to the system that needs to capture them as data; and this deeply affects the way we produce, socialize, participate, engage, and so on. 2 The monitoring of academic production and the capture of citations is, for instance, used to create indexes which indicate impact. Ideally, this can affect the efficiency of academia and be a relevant parameter for funding opportunities, careers, and the like. Even though this efficiency may be absent, the data capture still has an effect on the perception and performance of academic work; it is constitutive of our habitat and subtly affects our habits.
1Roland Barthes and Annette Lavers, Mythologies : Selected and Transl. From the French by Annette Lavers (New York: Hill and Wang, a division of Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1972).
2 Philip E. Agre, "Surveillance and Capture: Two Models of Privacy," in The New Media Reader, ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin & Nick Montfort (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England: The MIT Press, 2003).. According to Agre there are two dominant notions of surveillance. Surveillance is often perceived in visual metaphors (i.e., ‘Big Brother is watching’); however, computer science mostly builds on a tradition of capturing data in real time, and is often perceived in linguistic metaphors (‘association’, ‘correlation’, etc.). Hence these metaphors are also better suited to describe the kinds of surveillance taking place when data capture permeates social life, friendship, creative production, logistics, and other areas of life.
Und hier steht dann die Fußnote.
VERSION 2
The mythologization of technology that takes place in the speech acts does not imply that how the technology ‘really works’ is hidden, but merely the ability to automatically associate certain images with certain signification in an absolute manner. To follow on from Roland Barthes, the mythologization of our smart technologies removes the history of intelligent systems, smartness, ubiquitousness, openness, and so forth, from the linguistic act. Just as we do not question that Einstein’s famous equation, and equations more generally, are keys to knowledge – as Barthes describes – intelligent systems for smart cities, state security, logistics, and so on suddenly appear absolute.1 Along with openness, participation and other techno myths, ‘smartness’ appears as an algorithmic reality we cannot question.
However, all techno myths should be seen as expressions of how we want the world to be, rather than what it really is. In order to perform an interface criticism, we do not need to discuss if the technologies are true or false – for the smart techniques of data mining, machine learning, and so forth, obviously work – but we need to realize that their myths are also part of our reality. As Philip Agre has noted, we subject our actions to the system that needs to capture them as data; and this deeply affects the way we produce, socialize, participate, engage, and so on. 2 The monitoring of academic production and the capture of citations is, for instance, used to create indexes which indicate impact. Ideally, this can affect the efficiency of academia and be a relevant parameter for funding opportunities, careers, and the like. Even though this efficiency may be absent, the data capture still has an effect on the perception and performance of academic work; it is constitutive of our habitat and subtly affects our habits.
1 Roland Barthes and Annette Lavers, Mythologies : Selected and Transl. From the French by Annette Lavers (New York: Hill and Wang, a division of Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1972).
2 Philip E. Agre, "Surveillance and Capture: Two Models of Privacy," in The New Media Reader, ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin & Nick Montfort (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England: The MIT Press, 2003).. According to Agre there are two dominant notions of surveillance. Surveillance is often perceived in visual metaphors (i.e., ‘Big Brother is watching’); however, computer science mostly builds on a tradition of capturing data in real time, and is often perceived in linguistic metaphors (‘association’, ‘correlation’, etc.). Hence these metaphors are also better suited to describe the kinds of surveillance taking place when data capture permeates social life, friendship, creative production, logistics, and other areas of life.