I had meant to say as the last sentence to the eighth paragraph words to the effect of: “…might not still have some purpose in educating though”

Instead of what I did.

Apologies for any confusion.

And yes, I was alluding to “people’s” jobs in the final paragraph.

Cheers-

One instance where we seem to come CLOSE to agreeing, is that “these fine lines” are ALREADY important.

Yours’, at least in this instance seems to preclude, also at least in this instance, that it is not feasible the “already-concerned citizens” of which you speak, might not actually agree with the message that they are CHOOSING of their own free will, to both disseminate, AND profit from.

It seems as if you address humanity as entirely devoid of the capacity to reason from a moral base, and further considering the invariable fallout of their correlated decision making; as if the choice between making a decision between the same ends, somehow nullifies it’s effects, owing to the prospect of more immediate and shared agendas, whether they be financial or otherwise.

This is not to say I would accuse you, or any reasonable person of circling Kantian ideals 24/7. (Which is also to say, one post does not a lifetime projection, and or personal historical thesis make)

Perhaps this is all just a metaphorical knee-jerk reaction to the circumstances surrounding the structure, instead of the structure itself. I have no desire to pretend to be beyond the grasp of politicking, and thus, have no intention of taking anyone to task on such a matter, if that should be the case.

Though it does seem reasonable to me to bring to bear that the circumstance behind an employer harassing it’s employees whether through a third party, or not, seems as if altogether different than presenting an opportunity to tie personal advancement, and political choice, in conjunction with a semi-mindless game; no matter the political ends; the former seems at least to me to smack of coercion; no pun intended.

You might do well to consider that it is also not outside the realm of possibility that such a “platform” could be utilized for political agendas that you might find less obnoxious, assumptions provided. Personally, (why not) I wouldn’t mind throwing in my hat to see the Farmville platform utilized to encourage legislators, via their constituents, to instigate more sustainable agricultural practices, such as no till farming, more efficient water usage, etc., however, as noted in previous comments, and from personal experience, such means of communicating with politicians is not as effective as other means of influence. This is not to say that such a scenario still might have some purpose in educating though.

Finally, at least SOME offering is being made to compensate people for their time. It’s not as if the circumstance will mean, even if the sole purpose for doing said work is financial gain, that the intended prospect(s) will march off to save the Union, as was the case during what some still call the Civil War, or laboring for pennies on the dollar, as with Amazon Turk. (Then again, as one of my Professors who helped broker one of the Nike deals in Indonesia reported to us, “Hey, wait a minute, lines for those jobs were out, the door, down the street, and around the block; Nike was paying 50 times more than was possible to secure employment elsewhere with the same skill set, if jobs in that region could be secured at all; even if it wasn’t near enough to keep a senior citizen here in cat food)

This seems to be the point where our “liberal sensitivities,” assumptions further provided, begin to fall sway, and the winks and the nods start rolling out; a bit like watching a women’s studies major attempt to shift from invoking Rawls to a good Ronald Reagan impression, when the subject of pornography, and or prostitution comes up; but I fear digression.

After some consideration, and on to perhaps what is a slice of the bigger picture, maybe what is truly scary about digital sharecropping, and the like, is precisely that said “volunteers,” are not at their corporeal wits end. It would be one thing to rationalize the process as an attempt to seek a reputation for excellence in a chosen field, but that doesn’t explain, day in, day out, dedication. Perhaps it’s the day in day out toil to contribute toward an end that is managed in terms of social recognition, for fear of the masses getting wind of their worth, and the extent to which, they are not being proportionately financially rewarded, combined with a cleverly inculcated fear of risk AND profit, that has so many people striving to not think of at least some portion of their activity as immediately serving other’s gains; i.e., it feels free, ergo, it must be.

My understanding is that this is already true, and has been true for a long time (basically as soon as email spam was invented).

“we probably need a better name for this phenomenon than ubiquitous human computing. Any ideas”

I thought “ubiquitous human computing” was JZ’s way of rebranding the topic so that he could talk about the issues to his target audience without being immediately dismissed out of hand. It’s not like he’s about to embrace a phrase like “digital sharecropping”!

http://www.culturekitchen.com/categories/digital_sharecropping