Exponential Growth and Electronic Media
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Exponential Growth and Electronic Media
This might be a little long, sorry!
I'm reading a book called "Paris to the Moon" for a book club I just joined (...still reading; I'll let you know if the book is any good...) and one of the essays mentioned a concept called the "Regulon".
Basically, the Regulon is a factor that controls exponential growth. For example, a codfish has a million eggs and if those million eggs each become a million codfish that in turn have a million eggs, we would be overrun with codfish if it weren't for regulatory factors like El Nino, predators, illness and so on. Basic Darwinism.
The part of this that interested me is the concept was then applied to media, or the "Semiosphere" of electronic information, like television, e-mail, websites, and so on. The comment was that the electronic world has no Regulon. It doesn't get ill and die. It doesn't have a predator.
Which means e-mail (SPAM, especially!  ) has no controlling factor. In fact, constantly improving technology (the increase of bandwidth, servers, websites, and computer speeds) seems to promote the growth of electronic media.
I thought it was an interesting idea. I don't know how many of you get SPAM e-mail every day; I get TONS of it on my work e-mail. Last year, it used to be 2 or 3 every day, but now it's more like 20 or 30. It keeps increasing (particularly pornographic SPAM, which is the topic of another angry rant altogether!)
I also think it can't be healthy to be barraged with constant communication (er, as opposed to the stuff we seek out by choice, like this wonderful web board!). The constant repetition of the Sept. 11 images on CNN were impossible not to watch, but left me drained, depressed, and anxious even months after. And every time I shift-delete another porn SPAM e-mail, I get furious. My heart rate goes up, I think about sending nasty e-mails in return, it just doesn't go away.
Can anyone think of a regulating factor for electronic communication? Catastrophic events like Sept. 11th seem to increase it; I know I was glued to CNN and various web sites and e-mail after that day. I increased my e-mail checking and TV watching as a result of Sept. 11.
I guess I'm just wondering, too: where will it all end? How much can it grow before we get overwhelmed?
And, finally, is there a solution out there other than passive Darwinism, which would probably say that the sheer bulk of electronic traffic will eventually wear out the equipment that passes it.
I'm hoping to discuss this at my book club meeting on Wed., and would like to get some other points of view, thoughts, or ideas.
It will take some thought. Thanks for giving me something to think about. If I can think of something of interest I will let you know.
What a thought provoking topic.
I don't agree with the author's basic premise, that the world of media has no "Regulon". Starting with Spam (and yes, I hate it), there are regulators or Regulon. Start with filters (which I recently started using because I started getting a lot of spam). Add that many servers/server companies are now starting to act strongly against spammers, because if they don't they get lots of complaints from their paying customers. There are also spam blockers, developed by clever people who know how much we hate spam. And, because of the proliferation of pornographic spam, the federal government is working hard to develop some means of controlling who it gets sent to.
"Passive Darwinism". An interesting thought. But, sadly, no amount of electronic traffic will "wear out" the equipment that passes it on. (For which I am rather grateful - I'd hate to have to buy a new computer just because of the number of electronic images I have viewed, whether spam or not.)
In the end, the Regulon is us (to paraphrase Pogo). The web sites we (and others) don't visit eventually go off the web if they don't attract enough visitors. The TV shows we and others don't watch go off the air because of their Nielsen ratings. The magazines and newspapers we don't buy stop publishing. Whether we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed is, in the end, up to us. I can choose to answer my phone or let the answering machine pick it up. I can turn my cell phone off in church, in a theater, or when I just don't want to be reached by cell phone. I can choose whether to watch a particular TV show, read a particular email, visit a particular web site or not.
I think one important task for parents these days is to teach their children how to critique what is placed in front of them and learn discrimination. I used to sit with my children to watch the TV shows they wanted to watch, and would point out the more ridiculous parts of the shows, or the ways in which I felt the show violated basic good taste or ethics. I also critiqued the commercials, commenting on whether a particular toy or other offering was really as good as it appeared on the screen, and always pointing out that someone who wants you to buy their product is going to say what they think will make you buy it, which might not always be completely truthful. They watch very little TV as adults, which I take some credit for, and they are rather cynical about advertising and TV hype about "role models", politicians, and the like.
I also think that as parents we have to model this kind of discrimination, showing our children what we think is a good or productive or truly entertaining use of our time as audiences. For example, if your 5 year old watches The Simpsons with you, I think you don't have a lot of room to complain when your child emulates Bart Simpson, unless you spend part of that watching time pointing out that while it might be funny on TV, Bart Simpson behavior simply is not acceptable in the real world. One problem with young children and visual media is that they have a hard time telling the difference between what they see on television and real life. Which is why I censored my children's TV watching not only for violence, but also for themes which I thought presented unacceptable situations - like the smart (or smartmouth) child and the dumb parents (I sure didn't want smart-alec, smartmouth kids), the hot and heavy teen romance shows and films (since I didn't really want my sons to think that hot and heavy romances were OK for young teens), and shows that I thought were simply dumb - those in which most of the characters behaved in ways that I considered dumb and which would real people in real life would never be allowed to behave.
As for September 11 and similar events, I tend to watch it all the first day, and when I start feeling overwhelmed with it I turn it off, watch something else or, if that's not possible, put a tape in the VCR or pick up a book or go work in the garden.
I think the best Regulon for media is teaching our children how to use the media rather than be used by it, and modeling that behavior for them.
I like your concept, Ginny: that the Regulon is us as audience and consumer.
And I agree that we have to take control of how much we'll accept by walking away from the TV or the computer. After Sept. 11, I was a little afraid to turn off the TV in case I'd miss some warning or new bit of news, and unfortunately, that still hasn't fully gone away. I'm more up to date on current events than I'd like to be, sometimes.
But you're right: consumers are the Regulon by their very disinterest in a product. The audience is the Regulon by what they choose to view.
I'm not so sure spam filters are effective, though. As soon as a program comes out it's already obsolete, much like virus scanners. You can try to keep the filters up to date, but there's always someone who finds a way around them so it's perpetual maintenance.
As a programmer, I also know how to write a spider that gleans e-mail addresses from various sites. You set it on a major server and let it run; at the end of the day you'll have a million addresses. The list can then be sold to various marketers (the list itself is usually advertised by Spam).
(BTW, I've never written such a program, but I've studied the code when I worked on building a filter for our mail server).
I also worked in marketing and spam is considered the most cost-effective advertising there is. Spam gets a better response rate than any other form of advertising out there because it's basically free and instantaneous (albeit invasive and horrid!). Anway, that's why I suspect it's never going to go away.
I hope eventually there will be an effective law or governing body that treats it like the harassment it is. I think there sort of is one already, isn't there? A few of these messages state at the bottom that "in accordance with such-and-such-bill" I'm getting this e-mail because I've "subscribed" to some news list and therefore the e-mail cannot be considered Spam, whereas I *know* that I have NOT asked for pictures of naked cheerleaders or subscriptions to viagra.
The thing with e-mail and purely electronic communication is that it doesn't disintegrate like paper, and a lot of it seems to be self-propagating (e.g. not just the "pass this on to ten friends" but by viral means, like the Melissa virus). The only control is the delete key. I just wish there was something that didn't take so much effort, that would make it go away by itself!
As I read farther into the book, which is set in Paris and about Parisian culture after all, the author proposed that the Regulon might be language. In the case of Spam, I'd disagree. It's worth noting that a lot of it is starting to come from outside the country. I get Spanish Spam for that matter, too.
P.S. On another note, here's a useful tip for everyone: as a safeguard when forwarding jokes, interesting tidbits and such through e-mail, always delete the e-mail addresses of past recipients before sending; this is how a lot of marketers get valid e-mail addresses. Especially those ones who say they're "tracking to see how far it goes..."
And NEVER use the unsubscribe function unless it's a reputable business. Many of them are actually e-mail validators. Grrr.
(...there's the Spam rant I alluded to, to some extent).
|
Members
