Week #9 Choice-You may always choose "none" of the above

We are used to seeing “aggregated” (content pulled together from various other sources) content based on our own purchase history, but how do you feel about content created based on our own purchase his- tory? What does this mean for culture? 

First of all, I will begin by saying that America is a consumerist society. The notion of consumerism drives our everyday life and activities. The internet, in my opinion, has done everything to fuel the very idea of consumerism. 

In regards to this question, I feel that the 'aggregated creation of content based on purchase history' is a smart business move, however it feels somewhat like an invasion of my privacy. The feeling is quite odd-I would almost equate it to the way in which social media users nearly "stalk" other social media profiles. Just as it has become "socially acceptable" to 'stalk' other people, it has become acceptable for corporations to generate advertisements and content based on our internet search history and recent online purchases. 

Our culture is changing at an ever-rapid  pace as a result of this. Instead of going to the a store and having a real-life interaction with a human being, we now enjoy the ease of "one-click" shopping. Interestingly enough we mistakenly think that this gives us more power, but the reality is that we are rendered almost powerless by the corporate deception and manipulation of the "one-click" purchase. Because the reality of this situation is that it's not good for us, but it is good for the company because they will inevitably increase their production. 

What happens to content that doesn’t fit into any easy categories and demographics? 

This is an excellent question, and I assume that this unusable content is simply tossed by the wayside. In my life I have learned that money equals power, and Google is a corporation. Therefore, the aggregated content that supplies the most money and the most advertisements will always prevail. These ads will always bypass our local ads and companies. 

Why is the bias of digital technology so heavy toward
choice, rather than ambiguity? What are the human results of making so many digital decisions? Why would ambiguity be valued? 

Throughout the text I have discovered that digital technology is composed of binary code, which is simply a series or arrangement of 1's and 0's. And this is precisely where the lack of ambiguity begins. The digital world appears real, discrete, and absolute to us; and we like this. Soon enough, we begin to see this theory reflected in the entire digital world. 

This is where we have to realize that nothing in the real world is truly discrete, and this distinction seems to be very difficult to accept as we continuously switch from the digital world to reality. 

Every time we click our "gender" and "age", we are experiencing what the author referred to as "forced choice." Granted, this is a 'choice' that we are given, and the act of choice is equated with autonomy, freedom, and democracy. However, is this digital 'forced choice' really a choice at all?

The result of all of these digital decisions is that we have become an obsessive, less engaged, and ultimately controlled society. And this is particularly evident in our everyday interactions. It's quite the paradox-we begin to feel as if we have no choice in the matter at all. 

Ambiguity is valued continuously in our life experience. I have discovered throughout my young life that it is okay to be unsure about things. However, this has taken me quite a while to be able to accept, and the more that I think about it-the more I wonder if the digital world's 'forced choice' is propelling the idea that ambiguity is unacceptable...

Declining to post your political preferences and religious views on Facebook is the most appropriate example of when ambiguity is certainly valued within the digital realm. I consider myself to be politically aligned with the left, but I try to practice serious discretion when engaging in political discussions on social media. Unless all of your "friends" think and believe like you, there's really no reason to be explicit with your political or religious ideals-this only creates distaste and hurt feelings.

Rushkoff points out that this world of constant choice is a benefit for marketers and those who would use these decision points as pressure points to force sales. How exactly does this work, and what is an example of marketers using forced choice as a sales force? 

When you sign up for Pinterest, the site will prompt you to click on your favorite categories so that it can 'tailor' your news feed to your preferences. While this may seem like a novel idea, the 'forced choice' actually gives you fewer options. You are no longer able to view everything on Pinterest because of the selections you made, thus causing you to possibly miss something great that you haven't heard of. 

This idea of 'forced choice' stems from the original digital idea-that everything is digitized and composed only of the binary digits 1 and 0. This is translated throughout the digital realm where you cannot proceed without first making a choice. 

The idea of "choices" is a dream come true for marketers and sales forces. They now have the opportunity to tailor their sales schemes to our preferences in this new digital world, where they were previously unable to reach us in reality.