Wark's idea of gamer theory

In his book, Wark refers to the concept of a gap being present in the game.

The gap must be identified and utilized, and may act as a kind of safe haven from the game, and keep us from getting sucked into this galaxy of the 'game space'. The gap can also be utilized as a space from which game space can be better analyzed and understood more objectively. This way, a new perspective may be attained and we may become learned enough to see the application of gamer theory in game space with more clarity, as an audience, rather than a participatory actor.

This is my take on the 'gap' which he discusses throughout the book.

The Election and Thoughts Derived from NYT Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04memo.html?scp=3&sq=2008%20Election%20Internet&st=cse This is the url address for anyone who did not see my earlier post.

The article gives an insightful analysis on how Obama managed to utilize the internet to his advantage. The first and foremost difference in this campaign, in comparison to previous ones was the intensity of it. It made the race to the White House so much more exciting, faster, and harder to keep up with. Both camps had advertisements, support groups and blogs, etc on the internet so that the platform would not go waste. The importance of the internet grew more when volunteers for the campaigns were largely recruited and directed via the internet.
Also, when Bush ran for reelection, many people had broad band and others were not fully equipped in waging campaigns and campaign wars through the internet, but this time round, it seemed everyone was just ready to go at it, sitting in front of their pc’s with a fully functioning and fast internet service.
A vital role was played by America’s youth in getting Obama elected. Much of the youth was mobilized via the internet , and further direction and organization was also given to them via the internet. It is remarkable to see the internet’s power and the extent to which it can determine our future.
Hats off to Obama’s campaign managers who were wise enough to capitalize on this great tool, the internet, and utilize the formidable force of the youth.

New York Times Article Citing How Internet Changed Politics in Election

November 4, 2008
The ’08 Campaign: Sea Change for Politics as We Know It
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
The 2008 race for the White House that comes to an end on Tuesday fundamentally upended the way presidential campaigns are fought in this country, a legacy that has almost been lost with all the attention being paid to the battle between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.
It has rewritten the rules on how to reach voters, raise money, organize supporters, manage the news media, track and mold public opinion, and wage — and withstand — political attacks, including many carried by blogs that did not exist four years ago. It has challenged the consensus view of the American electoral battleground, suggesting that Democrats can at a minimum be competitive in states and regions that had long been Republican strongholds.
The size and makeup of the electorate could be changed because of efforts by Democrats to register and turn out new black, Hispanic and young voters. This shift may have long-lasting ramifications for what the parties do to build enduring coalitions, especially if intensive and technologically-driven voter turnout programs succeed in getting more people to the polls. Mr. McCain’s advisers expect a record-shattering turnout of 130 million people, many being brought into the political process for the first time.
“I think we’ll be analyzing this election for years as a seminal, transformative race,” said Mark McKinnon, a senior adviser to President Bush’s campaigns in 2000 and 2004. “The year campaigns leveraged the Internet in ways never imagined. The year we went to warp speed. The year the paradigm got turned upside down and truly became bottom up instead of top down.”
To a considerable extent, Republicans and Democrats say, this is a result of the way that the Obama campaign sought to understand and harness the Internet (and other forms of so-called new media) to organize supporters and to reach voters who no longer rely primarily on information from newspapers and television. The platforms included YouTube, which did not exist in 2004, and the cellphone text messages that the campaign was sending out to supporters on Monday to remind them to vote.
“We did some very innovative things on the data side, and we did some Internet,” said Sara Taylor, who was the White House political director during Mr. Bush’s re-election campaign. “But only 40 percent of the country had broadband back then. You now have people who don’t have home telephones anymore. And Obama has done a tremendous job of waging a campaign through the new media challenge.
“I don’t know about you, but I see an Obama Internet ad every day. And I have for six months.”
Even more crucial to the way this campaign has transformed politics has been Mr. Obama’s success at using the Internet to build a huge network of contributors that permitted him to raise enough money — after declining to participate in the public financing system — to expand the map and compete in traditionally Republican states.
No matter who wins the election, Republicans and Democrats say, Mr. Obama’s efforts in places like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia — organizing and advertising to voters who previously had little exposure to Democratic ideas and candidates — will force future candidates to think differently.
“The great impact that this election will have for the future is that it killed public financing for all time,” said Mr. McCain’s chief campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt. “That means the next Republican presidential campaign, hopefully a re-election for John McCain, will need to be a billion-dollar affair to challenge what the Democrats have accomplished with the use of the Internet and viral marketing to communicate and raise money.”
“It was a profound leap forward technologically,” Mr. Schmidt added. “Republicans will have to figure out how to compete with this in order to become competitive again at a national level and in House and Senate races.”
This transformation did not happen this year alone. In 2000, Mr. Bush’s campaign, lead by Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, pioneered the use of microtargeting to find and appeal to potential new supporters. In 2004, the presidential campaign of Howard Dean was widely credited with being the first to see the potential power of the Internet to raise money and sign up volunteers, a platform that Mr. Obama tremendously expanded.
“They were Apollo 11, and we were the Wright Brothers,” said Joe Trippi, the manager of Mr. Dean’s campaign.
Terry Nelson, who was the political director of the Bush campaign in 2004, said that the evolution was challenging campaign operatives who worked for every presidential campaign, and would continue in 2012 and beyond.
“We are in the midst of a fundamental transformation of how campaigns are run,” Mr. Nelson said. “And it’s not over yet.”
The changes go beyond what Mr. Obama did and reflect a cultural shift in voters, producing an audience that is at once better informed, more skeptical and, from reading blogs, sometimes trafficking in rumors or suspect information. As a result, this new electorate tends to be more questioning of what it is told by campaigns and often uses the Web to do its own fact-checking.
“You do focus groups and people say, ‘I saw that ad and I went to this Web site to check it,’ ” said David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager. “They are policing the campaigns.”
Mr. Schmidt said the speed and diversity of the news cycle had broken down the traditional way that voters received information and had given campaigns opportunities, and challenges, in trying to manage the news.
“The news cycle is hyperaccelerated and driven by new players on the landscape, like Politico and Huffington Post, which cause competition for organizations like The A.P. where there is a high premium on being first,” he said. “This hyperaccelerates a cable-news cycle driven to conflict and drama and trivia.”
Among the biggest changes this year is the intense new interest in politics, reflected in jumps in voters registration, early voting and attendance at Mr. Obama’s rallies. To no small extent, that is a reflection on the unusual interest stirred by his campaign. Thus, it is hardly clear that a future candidate who appropriated all the innovations that Mr. Obama and his campaign tried would necessarily have the same success as Mr. Obama.
“Without the candidate who excites people,” Mr. Plouffe said, “you can have the greatest strategy and machinery and it won’t matter.”
Mr. Trippi, who worked for one of Mr. Obama’s rivals in the Democratic primary, former Senator John Edwards, said: “It has all come together for one guy, Barack Obama. But now that it’s happened, it’s a permanent change.”

Redefining Key Concepts

The meanings of ideas of democracy, equality, and choice have evolved, to say the least. These three key concepts, which complement each other, and are said to be the basis of many western civilizations, are increasingly getting controversial, as technology strips them of their once held beliefs. The Shirky article argues the same.

With the 're-feudalization of internet' (rebooting america), our choices are not truly free and random as true freedom of choice permits. Our choices are narrowed down by advertisments and marketing by giant companies that pursue their own interests, and do so by moulding our choices to what suits them best. These companies bombard us with ads once we visit a website that may suggest of our interest in a particular subject.

However, it can also be argued that such a phenomenon is part of the freedom that we ourselves have established and evolved through technology. Also, the free market economy endorses competition between companies, leading them to utilize every option that they may have to increase their clientele.

The Shirky article is correct in it's own right. The fact that our choices are not entirely chosen by us may seem unfair, and at the end of the day, is the result of our own previous choices.

You Are Being Watched On Campus

We often talk about the lack of privacy that the internet has brought, and how difficult it is to keep private things private. However, it is astonishing that a campus, reportedly of a liberal arts college, carrying out surveillance on it's students without having informed them. There is a surveillance camera fitted at the corner of Medbury(the side which faces Demarest). The camera, which is right under the search light, faces the quad. If something like is being done by the college, the least they can do is inform us of such happening.

Such actions in such institutions reveal that there is no guaranteed privacy anywhere today and that it is vital to voice our concerns and fight for our rights, if we are serious about attaining them that is.