alexander0's review against another edition
1.0
This book made me visibly upset at times. There is a great deal of rewriting what economic concepts mean here. Understandably, much of this is believably the case because neo-liberal economics seems to avoid the cultural attitudes of individuals as they relate to the collectives/groups/crowds which develop media through their own labor.
However, there are alternatives in Austrian economic thinking, and the current strain of game theory in networks that are very valuable to this conversation. However, here it seems much of those ideas were either appropriated without citation or the authors were without any background to speak on those topics. It seems strange to me that so much conversation was dedicated to economic theory here that barely any economics was actually read. It seems dominantly Marx was cited and taken as an authority on this; however much attention is paid to the individual. For this to be argued, ONE MUST READ AND CITE ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM! One cannot straw person these arguments, and pretend that this is the first case that this has argued this from a media production stance on value of "free labor" or "labor residual" or whatever. These is all clearly argued in labor theory of economics. People have discussed this in the context of social networks, but here it's as if the authors just prefer to pretend that such a strain of economic thinking has never been considered.
This book is often a misappropriation of economic thinking and almost entirely is valued on its marketing of phrasing. Sure, "spreadable media" is a useful semantic product, but I don't see why I have to use the arguments here instead of arguing on the basis of informational products being communicated through society in other ways, starting with Hayek's arguments about the differences in value and price in his "The Use of Knowledge in Society" and following to the work of Leonid Hurwicz and a more accessible use of his students' work.
I feel as though this work was largely void in teaching me anything new, and instead taught me how far the abuse of economic theory can go in order to straw person economics as ignorant of culture, when it is actually the cultural research which is the offender of ignorance.
However, there are alternatives in Austrian economic thinking, and the current strain of game theory in networks that are very valuable to this conversation. However, here it seems much of those ideas were either appropriated without citation or the authors were without any background to speak on those topics. It seems strange to me that so much conversation was dedicated to economic theory here that barely any economics was actually read. It seems dominantly Marx was cited and taken as an authority on this; however much attention is paid to the individual. For this to be argued, ONE MUST READ AND CITE ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM! One cannot straw person these arguments, and pretend that this is the first case that this has argued this from a media production stance on value of "free labor" or "labor residual" or whatever. These is all clearly argued in labor theory of economics. People have discussed this in the context of social networks, but here it's as if the authors just prefer to pretend that such a strain of economic thinking has never been considered.
This book is often a misappropriation of economic thinking and almost entirely is valued on its marketing of phrasing. Sure, "spreadable media" is a useful semantic product, but I don't see why I have to use the arguments here instead of arguing on the basis of informational products being communicated through society in other ways, starting with Hayek's arguments about the differences in value and price in his "The Use of Knowledge in Society" and following to the work of Leonid Hurwicz and a more accessible use of his students' work.
I feel as though this work was largely void in teaching me anything new, and instead taught me how far the abuse of economic theory can go in order to straw person economics as ignorant of culture, when it is actually the cultural research which is the offender of ignorance.
jrt5166's review against another edition
4.0
I thought Spreadable Media was quite good. It brought up a lot of points of the various ways that media is evolving. One of the most intriguing parts to me was a discussion of how online piracy creates a wider audience for a work and whether that advantage compensates for the lack of monetary compensation.
The idea of an enhanced book intrigues me, and I look forward to reading the some of the essays posted on the website.
The only downside of this book was stylistic. It suffered from the seemingly inevitable dryness of academia as well as a lack of a distinct voice. The voicelessness was probably a result of the multiple academics coauthoring the work. It is hard for three people to speak with one voice. However their collective knowledge more than made up for the somewhat challenging reading experience. All three of them are clearly experts in media studies, and the work was meticulously researched.
The idea of an enhanced book intrigues me, and I look forward to reading the some of the essays posted on the website.
The only downside of this book was stylistic. It suffered from the seemingly inevitable dryness of academia as well as a lack of a distinct voice. The voicelessness was probably a result of the multiple academics coauthoring the work. It is hard for three people to speak with one voice. However their collective knowledge more than made up for the somewhat challenging reading experience. All three of them are clearly experts in media studies, and the work was meticulously researched.
More...