Continuing this post, some excerpts from Abramson's review, points I've previously made in online discussions.
19/
It's not a dialectic because you refused the terms of the dialectic:
social media company wins or I do. What you did—instead—was cultural
judo: metamodernism. You accepted that the social media company was
going to do what it does and then chose to use that to your advantage.
21/
In Tristan's view, social media companies are "winning," and it's a
*dialectic*, which means the "user" has to be portrayed as unarmed. A
victim. Helpless. Abused. That's absurd. In fact, the social media
companies have "tools" (plural) and users have "tools" (again, plural).
22/
The first tool the user has is the platform—so *obviously* a tool it's
amazing the doc tells us with a straight face it isn't. The user *also*
has a meta-tool even more powerful than the tool itself—knowledge of
what the social media company wants its platform to be used for.
33/
We should *teach*—yes, for college credit—generative, creative, lawful
forms of platform-hacking, gamebreaking, modding, remixing, mashups,
misappropriations, intelligent misuse, and (above all) the understanding
of how "poetics" enables these digital creative modes and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.