Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1 of 212next »

Ted,

Thank you for your responses. I can't let go of my Derridean predilections too easily so I'll make one last time my case for seeing your view of Kindle as an economically exploitive technology as deriving from the "infiltrated presence" in your critique of the traditional printed book

I guess I originally took my Derridean cue from Bezos's statement, on the The Charlie Rose Show,that he wasn't trying to "outbook the [printed] book", talking (in some essentialist way) as if it's never possible to deny the books originary status. I still think that's the rhetorical stance taken here both by Bezos and you. I'm not implying that you have hunkered down firmly on the side of the printed book, hoping to show that everything afterwards is a corrupted weaker 'copy' of ideal literacy, but that the case for Kindle being, at least in Bezos's radical pro e-book sense, a necessary adjunct to literacy requires it. If we argue, as Bezos does, that the e-reader fills in the gaps of traditional literacy, then the printed book serves as what Derrida (in The Grammatology,calls an "infiltrated presence". The language of "duplicating", "representation" and even "experience", in your critique, shows me that you've begun from the same essentialist viewpoint, however spotty you may say the case for the primacy of the printed book actually is.

Bezos would probably concede the case for Kindle being, essentially, a "representation" of the traditional printed book plus all of its more interesting technical features. Digitalized texts are an improvement on what's already there. I believe, however, you're sidestepping the crucial representationalist stage of the argument—how does the printed (and digitalized) text mediate reality?—leaving yourself to some untested assumptions the argument makes from introduction of e-readers as improvement on the traditional "codex volume" to the ways in which the former "transform the reading of digital texts into an economically lucrative, value-generating activity."

What are these untested assumptions? (a) The Kindle paraphernalia constitute a weakened "form" of the printed book. How exactly? Why can't I, at least at a pragmatic level, just simply say that Kindle is a book: not a paratext or the sum of its technical accoutrements but book in its traditional sense? The "paratextual" features of e-readers, such as its journal- or daybook-like appearance, "electronic ink", portability,etc serve in your argument as dubious disguises of what are the book's standard uses. Again, the language of exemplar and copy: "codex volume" and Kindle, setting the stage for the way Kindle manufacturers cunningly claim to offer (as Bezos does) an improved technical version of the traditional book.The paradox you've noted does come from a poorly posed problem but I maintain the problem lies with Marxian critics who haven't adequately dealt with the crucial representationalist thesis first. In a word, I don't think without it you can claim that there even is a problem: viz. that we must "resign ourselves to living in a world in which technology leads to incrementally diminished capacities". I won't concede loss of any former readerly capabilities.

(b) It seems natural for you to move from the assumption of Kindle as a poorly disguised book to the more cynical Smythian claim of its "communication commodity" status. Not just an online retailer (from which we began) but data-collecting agency, a "web services provider", Kindle exploits an unsuspecting reading labour market. Data gathering becomes a spin-off industry made possible by the duped e-reader:"excess [surplus] capacity" (EC2 and S3) turned into wealth feeding directly into Amazon corporation. But how is this an exploitation of "life itself"? How does labour as reading freely engaged in become exploitive? Readers naturally attuned to the data-gathering nature of the act of reading cannot be expected to be that naive about corporate intentions. How is the Kindle sleight of hand considered the "form of appearance" when the crucial appearance-and-reality question of the printed book has nowhere been decided?

(a) I'm somewhat unclear on the critique here. In my reading (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be suggesting that I'm embracing the claim that e-books are somehow less authentic or able to produce a sense of presence compared to printed books. This is, in fact, almost the opposite of what I want to claim. We can go around and around all day chasing our tails, trying to prove to one another whether e-books or printed books (or speech or handwriting, etc.) are in fact the more real or authentic form of communication. To me that issue — fundamentally one of representation — is a less interesting starting point in that it distracts attention from a host of material concerns. Somewhere (and forgive me for not remembering where — perhaps in The Late Age of Print) I argue that the question of representation is best broached after the types of concerns I raise here, since the material dimensions of our reading objects shed light on why questions of representation or authenticity come to the fore in a given historical conjuncture.

I'd like you to clarify what you mean my the "untested assumptions" that linger in my move to a Marxian analysis. Any analytical framework brings with it its own set of entailments; the suggestion that there are "untested assumptions" would seem to suggest that there exists some framework without them. To me, the question that's at stake here is, does this particular framework and the resulting analysis produce insight that wouldn't otherwise be available to us. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

(b) Here, again, I think you're misreading my opening critique. I also don't agree with the suggestion that I'm installing a binary between (legitimate) online retailer and (illegitimate) data collector. What I'm attempting to show in this section is that Amazon is in fact, first and foremost, a data collector that uses retail instrumentally to accomplish its work. I believe you're honing in on my suggestion that many people assume that Amazon is a seller of things. I don't see why it's an issue, especially with the caveat "at the risk of over-generalizing," to try to put a finger on a prevailing assumption, if only then to try to complicate it.

The point about "excess capacity" isn't well-addressed here, admittedly. In my broader research on Amazon, I've discovered that the company will sell just about anything to thwart perceived inefficiency — including excess warehouse space, computer processing power, and more. What's intriguing to me, here, is how the company is articulating the act of reading to its broader efficiency paradigm, rendering it not only a data generating activity but also then an asset it can use potentially to make money.

(c) The issue for me here has to do less with a “complete epistemology of e-reading” and more with the gross over-estimation of the political effectivity of “textual poaching” writ large. I have no doubt that Kindle users have all sorts of felicitous reading itineraries; some might even go as far as to create a “demographic noise bomb,” as a previous interlocutor suggested. Readers – of whatever textual form – are not simply cultural dopes. But to suggest that because flesh-and-blood people are not cultural dopes does not mean they can’t be fooled, exploited, etc., at least some of the time. To suggest otherwise would seem to me a reductio ad adsurdum.

I do agree with a point you raise here: the types of activities I describe in the paper are not new to textual objects. Printed book publishers have been interested in consumers’ reading habits for generations. My questions, though, are these: is the quality of that information and what Amazon is able to do with it any different in the age of Kindle? And if so, what difference does that difference make? If nothing else, I find it intriguing that Amazon is not a publisher but rather a distributor of textual goods. How, then, does the nature of the company’s interest in publishing transform its interest in what readers do with texts?

(d) “I think of the academic world where dissertation readers/advisors are every bit as tyrannical (and self-serving) as Amazon-like corporations.”

Wow. I don’t even know how to respond to this statement, except to hope that it was offered as tongue-in-cheek. But then again, maybe it wasn’t… I would say, though, that I support your suggestion about the accessible distribution of public – and publicly produced – knowledge, and hope that sites like this one and others are starting to open the way.

Thanks, Ted!

I've posed my questions in very general 'philosophical' terms. The general point is that there are in your article interesting conceptual pairings that could be examined more carefully. Perhaps your responses will allow me to be more specific.

Re: Lots to Think About... by Conrad DiDiodato (guest), 21 Mar 2010 16:13

Hi Conrad,

Wow — thanks for such substantive and considered comments. There's a lot to respond to here, and I want to give the questions you pose their due. I'll need some time to think about them and will get back to you shortly….

Lots to Think About... by striphasstriphas, 21 Mar 2010 15:16

Ted,

I'd like to offer some observations about the view of "Kindle" technology as a surreptitious data-collecting, value-generating device vis-à-vis elected passages from the article:

(a) "I will note, however, that since at least the time of Plato, virtually every communication technology has been accused of diminishing the presence and authority of the Word, from the human voice to the human hand on down to the typewriter, the word processor, and beyond.7"

Here I call into question the Derridean binary speech/writing chestnut that seems to be stated in a more recent communications technologies form: does Kindle really count as a fall from a purer literary tradition represented by the "book"? Does the latter enjoy a self-presence that the former cannot hope to have, necessarily seen (in the terms of your analysis) as its "form of appearance" only? Can the book really be seen (as it is here) as an absolute "point of departure" (Derrida), ripe as it will soon be to all the inner-contradictions of a close reading?. It appears it is in your discussion.

I suspect, in a word, Kindle is not the "infiltrated presence" you think it is, certainly not in terms of a strictly Marxian formulation of Amazon as exploiter of a reader's labour power. A lot of untested assumptions have been built into this ebook/audience commodity transition. There's a primary discrepancy between the use of Marxian analysis (notoriously self-enclosed critique of capitalist economy) and the presentation of Kindle as this necessarily open-ended, easily exploitable technology. Kindle looks like a slippery fish in the Marxist critic's hands.

(b) "At the risk of over-generalizing, it probably would be fair to say that most people consider Amazon.com to be an online retailer. That’s a safe enough assumption, but it’s only partially accurate. Since 2002, the company has actively—and until the last year or two, quietly—been making itself over into a “web services” provider, or even more ambitiously into a “platform” upon which to construct on- and offline businesses. "

Since the exposition begins with the original (more general rhetorical) claim of Kindle as a kind of "shadowy" trace of the more pristine book technology it seeks to supplant (a claim I'm saying is suspect in terms of the way it's given), you seem to spiral even deeper into more ambiguous binaries, the next being the "online retailer/web services provider" one that's as suspect as the first. The die's been cast for linking "online retailer" to legitimate as opposed to illegitimate offline business "data collection". What's called into question is the way readers in general collect data: the nature of reading itself, which you've nowhere outlined as you ought if the essay's primary claim of its illegitimate appropriations by Amazon Inc. is to be validated. You conclude that "Amazon’s goal with these and other efforts is to monetize any and all of the company’s excess capacity, and to transform idle assets into nonstop, value-producing ones." But, again, in what sense is the act of reading really a kind of "excess capacity" (surplus value) the Kindle user's unwittingly given to Amazon?

(c)"Readers, according to Certeau, surreptitiously raid texts as they meander through them, "insinuating … the ruses of pleasure and appropriation" as they render texts temporarily "habitable."17 In this way readers play a kind of joke on the gatekeepers of the "scriptural economy," whose power and authority they challenge through their small but significant acts of 'textual poaching.' "

What makes you think readers don't continue to enter "habitable" texts in this way, purposely appropriating all the ebook technology's potential uses (and abuses)? As one critic of your essay has aptly remarked, even Kindle readers can't be that easily commoditized. Aren't even traditional book consumers so much fixed capital to be appropriated (or misappropriated) by knowledge industries in general, such as education? Hasn't Amazon just capitalized on tendencies already present in the reading practices of a burgeoning young ereadership? My years as a secondary school teacher have taught me to see the self-reflexive nature of an emerging Internet savvy generation. Unsurprisingly, you've left us with what appears to be the most specious distinction of all: that between traditional "textual poachers"/Kindle readers in which a flesh-and-blood reader has been transformed into (almost cybourg-like) consumers of digitalized reading. You need no less than a complete 'epistemology' of ereading to make this claim.

(d)"If indeed Amazon aspires to transform itself into a kind of “utility,” one built significantly out of information provided to it by the public, shouldn’t it then begin taking on some of the public responsibilities of one? For starters this would require much greater transparency on Amazon’s part, a process that could begin by opening up its proprietary databases to those who would use the information to contribute to public knowledge. "

Have the lines of communication between reader and author ever been transparent in this idealized "proprietary" sense of knowledge sharing? I think of the academic world where dissertation readers/advisors are every bit as tyrannical (and self-serving) as Amazon-like corporations. And even as the corporatist universities academic departments subserve. No claims can be made for the public responsibility of Amazon to equally distribute corporate data bases among the exploited reading masses without also making similar ones for knowledge production and distribution everywhere else.

I've read this item with great interest. It intersects with many of the ideas I develop in my new book called ANALYSING POLICY: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM REPRESENTED TO BE? (Pearson Education, Melbourne 2009). I would really like to pursue the references to Bergen, Grossberg and Raymond Williams. I'm having difficulty locating the precise references. Help please?

Carol Bacchi

Analysing Policy: what's the problem represented to be? by Carol Bacchi (guest), 29 Oct 2009 03:14

Thanks for your comment, anon. The question you raise actually will be the focus of the next piece I intend to write, so I'm not sure how complete a response I'll be able to provide here. I'll give it a try, though.

Part of my frustration with academic journal publishing (and I'm sure others share this frustration, too) stems from the narrow conception of "peer review" that seems to predominate today. Now, I should preface what I'm about to say by noting that I've had mostly good experiences with peer review, so I'm not advancing this criticism to express "sour grapes." Instead, I think it's worth questioning the extent to which assessment by two or perhaps three anonymous "experts" constitutes a "peer review." I also think it's worth thinking about the conditions under which this particular system of review arose. They seem to me quite different, technologically speaking, compared to the prevailing conditions today.

So instead of resting on our laurels, why not begin thinking about how to make peer review work even better, given the current technological context we inhabit? Here I'm imagining a system that would utilize some form of crowdsourcing as the platform for peer review. Now, I know that opens up a whole can of worms, one I'll need to deal with in the next paper. But all the same, there seem to me untapped opportunities to make "peer review" a more genuine, and indeed rigorous, peer review.

Re: Peer Review by striphasstriphas, 02 Nov 2008 22:52

Could you say more about what you mean by "reconsider[ing] what peer review means and how best to go about it?"

Peer Review by Anonymous (98.223.184.x), 02 Nov 2008 19:58

This idea is so fascinating and provocative—technologies as the material reifications of specific social practices and discursive relations. I like how this formulation takes us back in a way to the Greek root of the word "technology," techne. The latter mediates the tension at the heart of our present-day term, "technique," which refers simultaneously to a set of material or embodied operations and to wisdom that must be passed on from person to person, discursively.

The even more abstract (in a good way) point you raise, "Kindle may represent a step toward commodifying the discursive constitution of practices," may share an affinity of sorts with the post appearing below, "What is the Commodity Here?" But in light of my response to that interlocutor, I'm beginning to wonder if indeed Amazon is "commodifying" reading (or discursive practices more generally) or if indeed the company is discovering ways to "monetize" them—two terms I admittedly conflate in the paper that may not refer to exactly the same processes after all.

Perhaps some correspondences are beginning to emerge here, something like:

  • labor —> commodification
  • fixed capital (human resources) —> monetization?

I'm genuinely just spit-balling on here, but this seems to be one way in which the conversation is headed….

Re: Why the change? by striphasstriphas, 14 Oct 2008 14:38

The point you raise about Smythe, his conception of "the audience commodity," and the precise role Kindle readers play as laboring subjects is an astute and important one. Thank you for pointing out the error/oversight/elision to me. I'll be sure to make appropriate adjustments to the final version.

A couple of things here. First, in my background reading for this paper, I ran across Eileen Meehan's idea of "cybernetic commodities." It came up in a quite interesting discussion of commodification in Vincent Mosco's The Political Economy of Communication (p. 150). I wonder if this idea might mediate the tension that seems to be arising across several of the comments here, namely, between the labor of Kindle reading and the acts of discursive production that must take prior to and alongside that labor so as to render it value producing. I'm inclined to see an opening here—plus, "cybernetic commodity" would seem to account for the fact that the labor of Kindle readers isn't what's getting commodified per se as much as the data they're producing.

Second (and I'm not sure exactly what to make of this), it strikes me as odd that, with Kindle, "labor" and "commodity" seem to be severed so starkly from one another that even a classically Marxist framework cannot quite account for what's going on. There seems to me a double alienation taking place here whereby (a) audience labor is alienated from readers by Amazon and (b) those readers produce a kind of raw material (data, information) that the company may then choose to commodify or otherwise use. But what's interesting to me is how, in this scenario, human labor power is not a commodity to be bought and sold at all. Instead, it's more akin to fixed capital—a "human resource" in the baldest sense of the term.

All this suggests that I need to go much deeper in terms of exploring the relations between laboring subjects, capital (as in value producing assets), and cybernetic commodities.

You've really opened some doors here. THANKS!

This is really interesting stuff, and I wonder how many people who buy the Kindle have an expectation going into the purchase that such data-gathering will occur. I suspect it would be a fairly high number, considering how used to demographics we've become these days, particularly folks who have the money and technophilia (or research needs) to shell out for such an item.

What I'm more curious about is how exactly we can speak of commodification in this situation, a curiosity prompted by the discussion above around the production of the discursive objects necessary for commodification and the continued circulation of capital. Comparing the work of the Kindle to Smythe's "audience commodity" seems to muddy the waters around the commodity. In Smythe, the phrase "audience commodity" makes sense insofar as audience attention is the commodity. It is literally our act of attending to advertisements that is sold to advertisers (indeed, if the TV in on but I'm not paying attention to it, it would seem that, at least in that particular case, my own attention is not commodified by the network). But it doesn't quite make sense to call "reading" the Kindle's commodity (in the way that web advertising very directly commodifies web-surfing). It is an exploited labor, to be sure, but one that goes entirely unsold and unpaid—the commodity would seem to be the information generated about the reading selection and practice (assuming that Amazon is selling that demographic info in addition to using it themselves). In the case of television, attention is sold to companies that sell goods and services. In the case of Kindle, information about human activity is sold to marketers working on behalf of those selling goods and services. This discussion does, I admit, remain within a fairly classical Marxism, and would probably be a lot more useful in dialogue with work on immaterial and affective labor.

Reading thus becomes a value-productive activity, but not itself a commodity. The upshot of this, for me, is that Kindle owners could conceivably organize a sort of demographic noise-bomb by "reading" books interminably, taking nonsensical or deceptive notes on their Kindle "books," and otherwise scrambling the data gathered by the device. Detourning the device in a way that could perhaps detourn the discursive production of reading as object, returning reading to the realm of practice and invention (even if mischievous invention). Of course, this requires buying the device and some books in the first place, but it is something one can't really do with one's relation to TV commercials—there's no talk-back with commercials, no opportunity to lie about whether or how you're watching them.

I guess I should clarify that I understood you to be posing question (1), and that is what got me thinking along these lines. For me, one of the more intriguing implications of your approach is that it productively undermines any facile distinction between technology and discourse.

To the degree that the Kindle catalyzes the objectification of "reading," it *is* discourse. That's what I meant by referring to its effects as "alchemy." So when you say that the process is oblique, I understand this to be the rhetorical achievement of the technology itself. To the extent that it literally transforms an amorphous constellation of activities into a commodity, it performs the same "reifying" action as a name, a definition or a hegemonic signifier, at once dissimulating its own performative efficacy in doing so. This, in turn, is possible in part because it "reads" like, or comes pre-coded as, an object *rather* than a discourse.

At the same time, insofar as this sort of dissimulation is the condition of possibility for any meaning or objectivity whatsoever, it becomes important to note that, in addition to commodifying already preconstituted practices of reading, the Kindle may represent a step toward commodifying the discursive constitution of practices—or discursive tokens—as such (since reading is not just one practice among others but overtly involves the production of meaning).

Hi Dave,

I'm so glad you brought up the issue of reception studies. The field seems to me to be begging for some really solid intellectual-historical work that would document the connections between its "discovery" of the active, empowered consumer in the 1970s and efforts among marketers to champion exactly that image of the consumer from the late 1960s on. The coincidence, it seems to me, is no coincidence at all.

With that said, I do believe the contemporary moment is a genuinely mixed one: there are more outlets for active, engaged, grassroots "participatory culture" (a la what we're doing here on D&RW) than ever before, and only some of those result in direct, value-generating activities such as those I describe in the paper. Of course, I say that not knowing exactly what if anything, Wikidot (the host for this site) does with the information we're posting on it. I suppose I should look into that……..

Thanks for the comment, Dave. Like those preceding it, it opens up some important directions I'll need to explore further. For now, embrace your inner idealist and demand transparency. Heaven knows, we're in a rare moment in which people are beginning once again to see the virtues in regulation.

Re: Section 8di by striphasstriphas, 13 Oct 2008 18:01

Ted,

One thing that struck me about this section is that it seems to equate amazon's outbooking the book not only with an attempt to alienate the labor of reading and reap financial reward, but also with an attempt to out-theorize reception theory. In fact, the whole thing really substantiates something that I've long believed about these savvy new multimedia, multi-international businesses: that they're always a step ahead of the academic disciplines that try to analyze them for some productive social end. While media reception theory (as practiced by academics) in usually attempts to address certain imbalances of power (as here, between the producer and the consumer—although I know that this isn't really a work of reception studies itself), corporations like amazon seem to be using the same theories (although with much better tools at their disposal) in order to accentuate precisely those imbalances within processes of distribution. To my mind, this raises some thorny questions about what theories of epistemology, of knowing what it is consumers actually think and know, actually contribute: is there anything we can do that can't be improved upon for a specifically capitalist gain? The idealist in me wants to agree with your plea for more transparency in how this data is used, but the cynic in me questions whether such businesses have any incentive to do that all…

Dave M.

Section 8di by Anonymous (156.56.195.x), 13 Oct 2008 17:33

Yes…Sony has been quite the leader (and a rather poor one at that) where it comes to DRM. I recall that some of their DRM-laden CDs caused huge security problems with the Windows operating system in the early part of this decade. In any case, the point you raise is important: DRM is just one step in what you might call a "broad-spectrum" approach to monitoring and controlling how people use and interact with the goods they've purchased. It may be strange to think of things this way, but in the era of Kindle, you now effectively pay not only for a printed book when you buy one but also for a certain modicum of privacy in your reading. I don't mean to be overly-pessimistic about this, given that Kindle sales, though brisk, are still by most assessments fairly small. Still, what troubles me are the larger trends such a device portends.

Thank you so much for your observations and comments!

Re: Section 7 c iv by striphasstriphas, 13 Oct 2008 17:22

I love how you point out that what seems to be added functionality actually enhances Amazon's market data collection efforts as much, if not more than, it enhances the user experience.

I personally own a Sony Reader and find it a bit ironic that a company like Sony which is known for particularly harsh DRM and a self professed desire to invade every single aspect of the consumer's "digital life" has missed an opportunity like this.

Section 7 c iv by Anonymous (71.169.2.x), 13 Oct 2008 15:50

Thank you for such a thoughtful and substantive comment. You've given me a great deal to think about, especially given my focus. You rightly (and quite kindly) point out that my attention to the artifact, Kindle, and to the larger political-economic relations within which it is embedded, happens at the expense of the discursive relations that enable the forms/practices of commodification I've set out to describe. And in that respect you're exactly right: "what Amazon is selling is just as much the rhetorical technology that objectifies and commodifies 'reading' as the activity or products of reading itself."

For me, what's intriguing to note here is how this "selling" seems to occur obliquely. The company never comes out and says, "we're turning reading into an economically lucrative, value generating activity." It just kind of happens, no doubt the result of extensive internal documents and memos, combined with the technology, Kindle, which you might think of as a material bearer of these and other discursive practices. I suppose I'm trying to open up three questions here: (1) is it worth thinking about discourse and technology in cause-effect terms, and if so, which is which? (2) to what extent do we (researchers) have access to the discursive conditions you're speaking of (other than via proxy)? and (3) how would one intervene so as to constrain what you aptly call "discursive largesse?"

Again, a really provocative comment—one that will lead, no doubt, to a broader reconceptualization of the paper in subsequent drafts.

Re: Why the change? by striphasstriphas, 13 Oct 2008 13:59

I'm really loving the idea that a technology can function as a kind of rhetorical alchemy, transforming a mundane and nebulous activity—what is "reading," anyway?—into a quasi-object. This presupposes the self-evident but highly improbable existence of a whole range of objectifications, including especially the notions of "data" and, of course, "intellectual property."

But it may be worth retaining, for critical purposes, some notion of paradox within the newly posed problem; after all, reading becomes labor only when this alchemy is performed. One might argue that what Amazon is selling is just as much the rhetorical technology that objectifies and commodifies "reading" as the activity or products of reading itself. A useful response to such a claim might be to stress the sociality of another, anterior mode of production: the discursive production of *transparent* objectification.

Your astute observations remind me that underneath every form of commodification—of labor, of consumption, of risk, etc.—is a kind of discursive profligacy that makes objectification possible, turning, to read Marx via Bataille, fluid and thus irrepressibly munificent signifying capacities into an infinite variety of relatively stable tokens. This would suggest that, beyond the problem of expropriation for private gain, there is a problem of constraining this discursive largesse, restricting its scope by, in effect, turning it against itself. Is it a coincidence that at stake in the emerging forms of commodification are processes of signification itself?

To be something of a vulgar Marxist about it, my understanding is that Amazon is doing its best to become the "owner of the instruments of production" (distribution, exchange, etc.). Its web and order fulfillment services are especially instructive in this regard. Essentially the company is trying to position itself as an incubator for small businesses. The plan is relatively simple in the abstract: Amazon shoulders most of the heavy fixed capital costs; start-ups (and even more established businesses) then rent whatever fixed capital they may need from Amazon on an ad hoc (i.e., "on-demand") basis—from server to warehouse space and more.

What's especially interesting to observe here is how Amazon is in the midst of transforming itself from a business into a business "platform," upon which others may now opt to run. I'm not entirely sure of what the implications are of this move, but Amazon may well be reshuffling the deck in terms of our understandings of the relationship between class, power, and ownership.

Re: Why the change? by striphasstriphas, 11 Oct 2008 16:01

Interesting paper. What do you think Amazon's motivations were for expanding its business plan from retail to web services?

page 1 of 212next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License