I’ve only recently began using Substack regularly, but I just know that this is one of those articles I will keep coming back to. Such a brilliant analysis !
surveillance is apt because it implies some kind of conditioning on our behaviour. w the panopticon, what conditions our behaviour is not the fact of being watched but the possibility.
of course, it’s possible to argue that anybody in any social situation is being surveilled in that their behaviour is subject to the audience of their performance. however, given that the algorithm’s end goal is to watch us and decide whether we are worthy of being watched by others, the conditioning of behaviour is much stronger
You're right, the definition risks broadening to the point of not being all that descriptive. But you point me towards a third aspect I think I missed when I said surveillance was "watching" and then "documenting" on the part of the surveiller -- it maybe is a third thing too, that "possibility" of being watched that conditions behavior on the part of the surveilled? Or maybe the expectation of it...
Why choose "surveillance" as the word for watching and documenting? Especially strange for people within a close knit community. I get it, but surveillance always has a bad connotation.
It's when enemy governments spy on each other, in order to better prepare fighting each other. It's when the police violate people's privacy in order to get dirt on them. Etc. etc. All these things are collecting 'evidence' that must be kept secret from the person being watched. It's what you do to an enemy or a lesser. The data must be coerced out, stolen, because it won't be given willingly.
Algorithms spy and do surveillance on users, true. But is it really "surveillance" when users react to a meme or a celebrity's hot take... that was shared with every intention to be public?
You're right to point this out. One nuance I'd add: I believe in French, the verb "surveiller" doesn't have quite the same negative connotation. You may "surveiller" a group of children to watch over them, a resonance we don't have in English.
I would also say we underestimate how big a part surveillance plays in our lives. I'm in a coffee shop right now, being surveilled by a camera on the wall. In the street outside, at the traffic light -- I think it's the water we swim in. I don't think this coffee shop is malicious, or even particularly interested in me -- it's just how we interface with one another in this world. And in close-knit communities, there is frequently surveillance going on (it helps make the knitting) even if it isn't of an adversarial nature.
So maybe what I should do is modify surveillance with another word or adjective to more precisely catch what I mean here? As I said in another comment, the other risk I run (in addition to making it seem more negative/bad than it really is) is an over-broadening of the definition. Much to think about, and thanks for your comment.
Loved perceiving your perception of perception. Just to make sure I've understood, in the case of a meme such as Evil Kermit:
Layer 0 = Device screen
Layer 1 = Event, usually Good Kermit voicing a thought/observation
Layer 2 = Evil Kermit reacting to Good Kermit with a most nefarious and dastardly response
(No layer 2.5 as there is no 3rd party in the meme itself?)
Layer 3 = My text interpreting both Good Kermit's initial thought/observation & Evil Kermit's heinous response
Layer 4 = Social media website so in this case, 2016 Instagram
Layer 5 = "Haha that's so me let me show my friends"
Or is it not quite the same due to the lack of a 3rd hypothetical Kermit (mortality unknown and unassumed) reacting to Evil Kermit's reaction to Good Kermit?
I think it is the same structure, yes! One thing I kinda forgot to add: there might be another layer in the 3,4,5 zones -- the context of "people are making memes of Evil Kermit, let me make my own version." In which case the image has the layer of "being a meme." Wasn't quite sure how to articulate that without making the whole thing too convoluted. So much perceiving of perceptions that have been perceived!
Though I find myself still a little confused about your thesis. Would love if you could elaborate on what you mean by 'We are surveilling social media' - as in we are surveilling others on social media or the media itself or something else?
(perhaps I am also having some trouble understanding this point, because I tend not be surprised by the things that I see going viral in my circle - a lot of it makes sense - a recent example coming to mind is that of a girl dancing on a tree.)
I think we are "surveilling" primarily in the sense of surveilling the technology itself -- seeing what it is capable of, what we may use it for, how it makes itself available for others to use. And in a way, surveillance is often about not being surprised necessarily -- you watch the criminal because you expect them to commit a crime, etc.
The core idea is, I suppose, every meme is also a demonstration of what the internet/communities can do, as well as whatever it actually is.
Although I think we do surveil each other through it as well. So, not sure if I'm helping your confusion by saying "all of the above" essentially. The thought is kind of still in progress, tbh :)
Thank you for being smart, for knowing how to write these ideas in readable and widely-relatable ways, and for being part of the shift to show general publics that 1/academia does have useful things to say and isn't an ivory tower 2/ academics are not necessary hopelessly involved nerds unable to communicate in engaging ways 3/ politics works, in part, by means of aesthetics and affect. Looking forward to more from your laptop.
i feel weird perceiving this
I feel weird perceiving you perceiving this.
“I also hate to be perceived, so I get it”
I’ve only recently began using Substack regularly, but I just know that this is one of those articles I will keep coming back to. Such a brilliant analysis !
surveillance is apt because it implies some kind of conditioning on our behaviour. w the panopticon, what conditions our behaviour is not the fact of being watched but the possibility.
of course, it’s possible to argue that anybody in any social situation is being surveilled in that their behaviour is subject to the audience of their performance. however, given that the algorithm’s end goal is to watch us and decide whether we are worthy of being watched by others, the conditioning of behaviour is much stronger
You're right, the definition risks broadening to the point of not being all that descriptive. But you point me towards a third aspect I think I missed when I said surveillance was "watching" and then "documenting" on the part of the surveiller -- it maybe is a third thing too, that "possibility" of being watched that conditions behavior on the part of the surveilled? Or maybe the expectation of it...
Why choose "surveillance" as the word for watching and documenting? Especially strange for people within a close knit community. I get it, but surveillance always has a bad connotation.
It's when enemy governments spy on each other, in order to better prepare fighting each other. It's when the police violate people's privacy in order to get dirt on them. Etc. etc. All these things are collecting 'evidence' that must be kept secret from the person being watched. It's what you do to an enemy or a lesser. The data must be coerced out, stolen, because it won't be given willingly.
Algorithms spy and do surveillance on users, true. But is it really "surveillance" when users react to a meme or a celebrity's hot take... that was shared with every intention to be public?
You're right to point this out. One nuance I'd add: I believe in French, the verb "surveiller" doesn't have quite the same negative connotation. You may "surveiller" a group of children to watch over them, a resonance we don't have in English.
I would also say we underestimate how big a part surveillance plays in our lives. I'm in a coffee shop right now, being surveilled by a camera on the wall. In the street outside, at the traffic light -- I think it's the water we swim in. I don't think this coffee shop is malicious, or even particularly interested in me -- it's just how we interface with one another in this world. And in close-knit communities, there is frequently surveillance going on (it helps make the knitting) even if it isn't of an adversarial nature.
So maybe what I should do is modify surveillance with another word or adjective to more precisely catch what I mean here? As I said in another comment, the other risk I run (in addition to making it seem more negative/bad than it really is) is an over-broadening of the definition. Much to think about, and thanks for your comment.
what's the alternative? voyeurism? any situation where we look at each other inevitably gets kind of weird
Very hiyouarecurrentlybeingrecorded.com 📹
Loved perceiving your perception of perception. Just to make sure I've understood, in the case of a meme such as Evil Kermit:
Layer 0 = Device screen
Layer 1 = Event, usually Good Kermit voicing a thought/observation
Layer 2 = Evil Kermit reacting to Good Kermit with a most nefarious and dastardly response
(No layer 2.5 as there is no 3rd party in the meme itself?)
Layer 3 = My text interpreting both Good Kermit's initial thought/observation & Evil Kermit's heinous response
Layer 4 = Social media website so in this case, 2016 Instagram
Layer 5 = "Haha that's so me let me show my friends"
Or is it not quite the same due to the lack of a 3rd hypothetical Kermit (mortality unknown and unassumed) reacting to Evil Kermit's reaction to Good Kermit?
Anyway great article!!!
I think it is the same structure, yes! One thing I kinda forgot to add: there might be another layer in the 3,4,5 zones -- the context of "people are making memes of Evil Kermit, let me make my own version." In which case the image has the layer of "being a meme." Wasn't quite sure how to articulate that without making the whole thing too convoluted. So much perceiving of perceptions that have been perceived!
Thank you so much for writing this!
Though I find myself still a little confused about your thesis. Would love if you could elaborate on what you mean by 'We are surveilling social media' - as in we are surveilling others on social media or the media itself or something else?
(perhaps I am also having some trouble understanding this point, because I tend not be surprised by the things that I see going viral in my circle - a lot of it makes sense - a recent example coming to mind is that of a girl dancing on a tree.)
I think we are "surveilling" primarily in the sense of surveilling the technology itself -- seeing what it is capable of, what we may use it for, how it makes itself available for others to use. And in a way, surveillance is often about not being surprised necessarily -- you watch the criminal because you expect them to commit a crime, etc.
The core idea is, I suppose, every meme is also a demonstration of what the internet/communities can do, as well as whatever it actually is.
Although I think we do surveil each other through it as well. So, not sure if I'm helping your confusion by saying "all of the above" essentially. The thought is kind of still in progress, tbh :)
Thank you for your response! Will continue to wrestle with this idea!
P s. Still sniggering at the citation to Tuah.
Thank you for being smart, for knowing how to write these ideas in readable and widely-relatable ways, and for being part of the shift to show general publics that 1/academia does have useful things to say and isn't an ivory tower 2/ academics are not necessary hopelessly involved nerds unable to communicate in engaging ways 3/ politics works, in part, by means of aesthetics and affect. Looking forward to more from your laptop.
thank you so much for putting my laptop's screen onto your laptop screen :) hope you are doing great