The Advancement and History of Content

Cory Doctorow – “Network Effects vs. Switching Costs”

Doctorow’s article felt like a shit post on Facebook. At the end, he states, “You don’t have to agree that Facebook is worse than Google or Apple to know that something needs to be done about Big Tech.” After having ranted about Facebook for so long, having a clear bias, you’re only now saying we don’t have to agree? While I agree that Facebook isn’t great, this statement feels biased and lacks nuance. That said, Doctorow provides valuable resources to back up his claims. Facebook’s attempt to dominate video content, faking view counts, and failing to pay creators exemplifies how these companies manipulate users. Was it worth it, Facebook? In the end, media companies invested heavily in video, firing workers in the process, only to see their investments implode. The whole situation just feels like a giant mess that benefited no one, except maybe the companies who dug themselves into a deeper hole.

Kate Eichhorn – “A Brief History of Content in a Digital Era”

Content has greatly grown in this era, yet its definition remains debated. I align with the Oxford Dictionary’s definition: “that which is contained in anything,” but I wonder—why did nearly everything circulating digitally come to be known as content? Content is often categorized into Marketing, Publishing, Educational, and Entertainment, but the lines blur. A video could be both educational and entertainment, and books, typically seen as entertainment, also fit under publishing. The term “content” oversimplifies this vast world. When someone says, “I’m a content creator,” I’m left asking, of what? What exactly do you create? Is the person a painter, YouTuber, or video editor? “Content” has become a broad, marketable term that signifies anything consumed, manipulated, and used for profit. The industry doesn’t seem to care what type of content it is as long as it circulates widely.

Kate Crawford: Selections from Atlas AI

Crawford’s exploration of AI, especially the story of Hans the smart horse, was fascinating, but ultimately disappointing. Hans wasn’t performing math; he was just responding to human cues. This raises a bigger question: Who first believed that human intelligence could be formalized and reproduced by machines? And more broadly, who decided to put a human mind into a computer? Many people, I assume.

The quote from the text, “Ideally, an intelligent agent takes the best possible action in a situation,” reminded me of how androids are portrayed in movies like Alien. Androids can’t be trusted in those films, and I think there will always be doubt about whether intelligent machines are truly trustworthy. In games like Detroit Become Human, androids are depicted as empathetic, but can we trust them? I believe we can’t trust AI entirely, though the subject has become so normalized that many people don’t care. However, the uncomfortable reality is that AI systems depend on data, aka our data. Machine learning models require ongoing flows of data to be more accurate, and much of this data is extracted without our awareness. Ethics surrounding data usage and AI development are often overlooked, and this raises an important question: Are you okay with this? The data we put online may be shaping AI systems without our knowledge or consent.

These readings illustrate the growing complexities of content creation, digital manipulation, and AI development. As technology advances, the question of trust, whether in platforms like Facebook or in intelligent systems, becomes increasingly important. The lines between creator, consumer, and machine are blurring, and we must ask: What are we willing to trust, and at what cost?