“The state of exception, in the Schmittian sense, defines a political
liminality that is established outside of the juridical order, created by the
sovereign rule.” (Aytes, p.170)
The question of in/visibility this week, in both Roberts and
Aytes piece, help us look at larger structural issues and how they might operate simultaneously at different scales.
The reorganization/reconceptualization of regulations/legislation:
Elsewhere, Roberts has discussed
the editorial decision by big firms to hide certain war videos while allowing
others to appear and be shared on the platforms. These decisions, she argues,
become part of a larger governmental apparatus, where nations can shape public
opinions of foreign nations simply by hiding or allowing videos/images to
appear on these platforms. Social media company usually operate under the omen
of technology, in order to avoid any trappings/ethics/policies that would apply
to journalistic operations. In a way, Aytes focus on “machines of
governance” and the “state of exception” reflect perfectly what Roberts presents
in her text: the distinctions between the invisible and the visible is always
already constitutive of the bottom lines of these companies but their (physical,
emotional and social) effects reach much further than the platform.
As I previously mention in class, these platforms have the
capacity to satisfy the rules of certain markets they want to enter (Germany
has a strict “no nazi shit” law and Facebook has been able to implement that
pretty easily in the region), yet, other governments are more than happy to let
racist propaganda and lies be distributed without verification.
Dismantling of labor laws:
What both Roberts and Aytes seem to argue is that all these
technological “improvements” that are said would help improve our labour
conditions, in fact propose a new series of troubles that necessitate more and
more unpaid and low-paid labor forces to fix them. While the immaterial
conditions of this type of labor have very material effects (mental and
physical exhaustions or lack of proper and safe work environments), this
constant abstraction of the rules of labour puts the pressure on the worker to
always-already make themselves available emotionally and physically.
I'm also interested in how automation not only requires a labor force for maintenance, but also sets a new standard for labor practices. I gasped when I read Aytes' description of artificial artificial intelligence. It wasn't so much the assertion that AI requires human labor to keep it up that surprised me, but what the language of such a designation implies. The notion that there's a codified term for a labor force meant to emulate technology designed to exceed human capacity is just... It is telling how such work is often tied to conditions of precarity.
ReplyDelete