Chat with us, powered by LiveChat annotated bibliography | acewriters
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

*3 pages long.* due tomorrow* i have posted uncompleted essay(i was gonna write it), you can start the work from that essay.
assignment_10.pdf

abdulhadi_albaqshi_assignment_10.docx

gift_of_surv.pdf

abdulhadi_albaqshi_assignment_10.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

English  102:  Writing,  Research,  &  Responsibility  in  Social  Media  Culture  
Fall  2016  
 
Assignment  10:  Rhetorical  Effects  of  Surveillance      
Part  1:  Reading  an  Academic  Essay  
Begin  by  reading  and  taking  notes  (just  as  you  have  done  for  past  assignments)  to  “The  Gift  
of  Surveillance.”  This  is  a  scholarly  essay  published  in  an  academic  journal,  and  it  may  be  
helpful  to  look  up  the  journal.  In  addition,  note  how  the  form  and  vocabulary  is  different  
than  what  we  have  ran  into  in  our  other  readings  (this  is  good  practice  for  thinking  about  
your  own  academic  research,  which  we  will  begin  next  week).    
 
Part  2:  Composing  an  Annotated  Bibliography  for  an  Academic  Essay    
In  your  upcoming  research  project,  you  will  be  asked  to  compose  an  Annotated  
Bibliography  of  scholarly  and  popular  sources  you  have  researched  yourself.  To  help  
prepare  you  for  that  work,  and  for  navigating  scholarly  essays,  for  this  assignment  you  are  
being  asked  to  compose  an  Annotated  Bibliography  entry  for  an  academic  essay.  Your  
annotated  bibliography  for  “The  Gift  of  Surveillance  should  have  3  parts:    
 
1)   The  source  citation  in  MLA  format    
Our  class  does  not  require  a  formatting  guide,  but  if  you  have  a  guide  such  as  the  DK  
Handbook  you  may  use  it.  Another  fine  option  is  the  Purdue  Owl:  
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/  
 
2)   Summary  of  argument  that  includes  author’s  credentials  
Complete  a  Google  Search  of  the  author:  who  is  it?  What  credentials  to  they  have?  
(in  your  own  writing,  giving  some  context  about  an  author  and  their  creditials  will  
help  to  make  your  essay  more  credible).  Also,  what  is  the  main  argument  being  
made  in  your  source  and  what  is  its  purpose?  Be  as  descriptive  as  you  can.  
Additionally,  please  compose  a  sentence  or  two  about  the  purpose  of  this  source  as  
the  first  sentence  in  your  annotated  bibliography  entry  and  bold  it  (with  the  rest  of  
the  summary  following).    
 
3)   Select  3-­‐‑6  quotes  from  the  essay  that  seem  most  important  
In  your  own  research  you  will  want  to  select  3-­‐‑6  quotations  from  the  reading  that  
help  you  think  about  your  own  research,  but  for  the  purposes  of  this  assignment,  
choose  3-­‐‑6  quotations  that  seem  the  most  valuable  or  interesting  (ones  you  would  
like  to  talk  about  during  discussion).    
 
An  example  annotated  bibliography  is  included  on  the  next  page.    
 
 
Due:  Tuesday  to  the  D2L  Dropbox  before  the  start  of  class  
 
 
English  102:  Writing,  Research,  &  Responsibility  in  Social  Media  Culture  
Fall  2016  
 
Example  of  an  annotated  bibliography  entry  for  a  source:    
 
Perelman,  Chaïm,  and  Lucie  Olbrechts-­‐‑Tyteca.  The  New  Rhetoric:  A  Treatise  on  
Argumentation.  Notre  Dame:  U  of  Notre  Dame,  1971.  Print.
The  New  Rhetoric  sought  to  disrupt  the  philosophical  theories  reliant  on  cartesian  
reasoning  (which  required  a  demonstration  of  a  claim  in  order  for  it  to  be  accepted  
as  possible  for  all  competent  and  reasonable  people  to  accept)  in  order  to  all  show  
how  those  claims  that  are  not  clearly  self-­‐‑evident  also  have  the  right  to  claim  
reasonableness.  While  the  modern  philosopher  of  the  time  strived  for  a  system  of  thought  
that  matched  the  “dignity  of  science”  (2),  the  authors  want  to  argue  that  just  because  there  
is  no  experiment  or  logical  deduction  that  would  solve  a  problem,  doesn’t  mean  that  we  
must  “abandon  ourselves  to  irrational  forces,  instincts,  suggestions,  or  even  violence”  (3).  
They  note  how  rhetorical  study  has  nearly  been  altogether  abandoned  by  philosophers,  
and  push  toward  a  “rapprochement”  with  rhetoric  that  aims  at  emphasizing  that  
argumentation  develops  in  terms  of  audience  and  that  ever  communicative  expression  has  
an  intended  audience  and  conditioned  “whether  consciously  or  unconsciously,  by  those  he  
wishes  to  address”  (5-­‐‑7).  Also  importantly,  The  New  Rhetoric  claims  that  though  rhetoric  
was  initially  designed  for  the  “common  man”  or  to  “ignoramuses,”  the  work  of  this  book  
does  not  want  to  “lose  sight  of  the  quality  of  the  minds  which  the  argument  has  succeeded  
in  convincing”  (7).  This  definition  of  rhetoric,  then,  emphasises  and  requires  mutual  
respect  in  the  relationship  of  speaker  and  audience,  especially  in  terms  of  intellectual  
contact”  (14).  This  reading  would  be  good  background  information  (using  the  BEAM  
Framework)  for  my  source  since  it  talks  about  the  history  of  rhetoric.
 
Key  Quotes  from  source
•   “A  change  in  audience  means  a  change  in  the  appearance  of  the  argumentation  and,  
if  the  aim  of  argumentation  is  always  to  act  effectively  on  minds,  in  order  to  make  a  
judgement  of  its  value  (so  NOT  propaganda  or  faith)  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  
quality  of  the  minds  which  the  argument  has  succeeded  in  convincing.”  (7)
•   “In  real  argumentation  care  must  be  taken  to  form  a  concept  of  the  anticipated  
audience  as  close  as  possible  to  reality.  An  inadequate  picture  of  the  audience,  
resulting  from  either  ignorance  or  an  unforeseen  circumstances,  can  have  very  
unfortunate  results.”  (20)  
•   Multimodality  mentioned  briefly  here:  “Various  conditioning  agents  are  available  to  
increase  one’s  influence  on  an  audience:  music,  lighting,  crowd  effects,  scenery,  and  
various  devices  of  stage  management.  These  means  have  always  been  known  and  
have  been  used  by  primitive  peoples  as  well  as  by  the  Greeks,  Romans,  and  the  men  
of  the  Middle  Ages.  In  our  own  day,  technical  improvements  have  fostered  the  
development  of  these  conditioners  to  the  point  that  they  are  regarded  by  some  as  
the  essential  element  in  the  acting  on  minds.”  //  “Besides  the  conditioning  of  this  
kind,  which  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  wrok,  there  is  conditioning  of  speech  
itself…etc.”  (23)
 
 
Abdulhadi albaqshi
English 102
9/17/2017
Annotated bibliography
Hulsey, Nathan, & Joshua Reeves. “The Gift that Keeps on Giving: Google, Ingress, and the Gift
of Surveillance.” Surveillance & Society [Online], 12.3 (2014): 389-400. Web. 17 Oct. 2017
The article “The gift of surveillance” was about the new Google’s online game. The author
says that the game Ingress uses player’s real time and locations to make them able to
interact with each other. The article was written by to assistant professors. The first one is
Nathan Hulsey who is an assistant professor in Nazarbayev university and he has a Ph.D. in
digital media form. The other one is Joshua Reeves who is an assistant professor in Oregon
State University and he has a Ph.D. in new media communication and speech communication.
The essay talked about three types of surveillance that gives Ingress “condition of existence”.
The first one is “top down surveillance in which google track the data that was produced by the
players.” The second one is “lateral surveillance in which players display and produce data about
themselves. The third one is “self-surveillance which allow players to access information of each
other and monitor them.
The players were supported to give and receive gifts if they maintain the required task on the
game. Also, google were tracking the player’s information to get benefits out of them.
Key Quotes from source
* “For Esposito, the munus is a gift that demands reciprocal action. “Once one has accepted the
munus,” Esposito writes, then “one is obliged to return the onus, in the Surveillance& Society
12(3) 397 form of either goods or services” (2007: xiii). Munus is a binding gift, a type of
contractual potlatch, since it calls for a response from the receiver and thus embeds both parties
in a recurrent and mandatory system of reciprocity.” (P.396)
* “However, because of its immune status vis-à-vis the Ingress community, Google is
empowered with the exceptional privilege to extract players’ communal contributions from the
cycle of reciprocal exchange. Once released from this system of communal reciprocity, the
Ingress community’s gifts are monetized, generating capital that becomes the exclusive purview
of Google.” (p.397)
* “In the most basic sense, the Ingress “community” is bound to a sort of gift economy: players
are bound to the game, bound to other players, and bound to Google in a cycle of reciprocation
(via game participation and compulsory data production)” (P.397)
Article
The Gift that Keeps on Giving:
Google, Ingress, and the Gift of Surveillance
Nathan Hulsey
Joshua Reeves
North Carolina State University, US.
nlhulsey@ncsu.edu
University of Memphis, US.
jreeves4@memphis.edu
Abstract
This article analyses Ingress, Google’s new massively multiplayer online game, as indicative of an emergent economy that calls
for the datafication of one’s mobile life in exchange for the gift of play. From this perspective, Ingress is simply suggestive of
broader sociocultural transformations in which citizens must submit to pervasive surveillance in order to participate in
contemporary economic and political life. Turning to Roberto Esposito’s recent work on gift-giving and communal exchange, we
explain how Google “immunizes” itself from its consumer community by continuously collecting that community’s gift of
surveillance while structuring its own conditions of reciprocity.
Introduction
“The world around you is not what it seems”—or so the advertisers of Google’s new massively
multiplayer online game (MMO), Ingress, would like you to think. Released in November 2012, Ingress is
a cutting-edge game that uses players’ real-time geographic coordinates and social networking platforms
to enable players to cooperatively contain a fictional invasion of digital “alien matter.” On the surface,
Ingress is simply a hot new game that calls on players to use social media and GPS-enabled mobile
devices to coordinate their movements across virtually layered hybrid spaces. Yet as many journalists,
activists, and watchdog organizations have noted, Ingress is also one of the most seductive and prolific
data-mining tools to be introduced in the last decade (Hindman 2013; Hodson 2012; Kolb 2013).
This essay will analyze Ingress as an exemplary site of an emergent form of digital economic exchange—
one that requires the “datafication” of one’s mobility and communicative action in exchange for the gift of
play (see Lycett 2013). To describe the unique features of this exchange, we will tease out some of the
cultural and political implications of “hybrid space” platforms like Ingress. Hybrid spaces integrate users’
real-time geographical data with online social networks (de Souza e Silva 2006), allowing multiple users
to coordinate through—and thus muddy the boundaries between—real and virtual space (de Souza e Silva
and Frith 2011; Gordon and de Souza e Silva 2010; Wilson 2012). Similar to augmented spaces
(Manovich 2006), data and the lived environment are inseparable in hybrid space: removing locational and
social data would effectively terminate the space (de Souza e Silva 2006). In the case of Ingress’s
gamespace, data is not merely layered onto locations; rather, the gamespace itself depends on the flows of
data embedded within it. The ubiquitous capture and analysis of users’ movements is a necessary feature
of hybrid space, augmented reality applications like Ingress (also called location-based mobile games, or
Hulsey, N. and J. Reeves. 2014. The Gift that Keeps on Giving: Google, Ingress, and the Gift of
Surveillance. Surveillance& Society 12(3): 389-400.
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org| ISSN: 1477-7487
© The author(s), 2014 | Licensed to the Surveillance Studies Network under a Creative Commons
Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license.
Hulsey and Reeves: The Gift that Keeps on Giving
LBMGs), as they require their users to submit to the datafication of their movements in public (and often
private) space. This opens up the possibility for new forms of productively governing the mobile playingsubject, as LBMGs like Ingress thrive on the surveillance and redirection of player mobility through
targeted commercial and non-commercial spaces. Through its embedded game mechanics, Ingress
encourages players to actively participate in a surveillance community while also normalizing data mining
and surveillance as a valid exchange for the privilege of play.
This article follows Bart Simon’s (2006) call to approach gaming practices as embedded in broader social
and cultural processes. As such, our argument will unfold in several stages. First, we introduce Ingress
through the lens of hybrid space and LBMGs, describing how the game’s capital potential is tied to its
ability to pervasively monitor and redirect the living movements of its playing subjects. After we briefly
analyze how players’ assent to this surveillance complements citizens’ more general willingness to
exchange ubiquitous state surveillance for the elusive gift of security, we interpret these developments as
indicative of an emergent economy in which pervasive surveillance is the primary medium of exchange.
From this perspective, Ingress is only suggestive of broader social transformations in which citizens must
submit to diverse surveillant apparatuses in order to participate in contemporary economic and political
life. Yet Ingress, because of its unique status as the world’s most cutting-edge LBMG—not to mention the
fact that it is directly plugged into the data coffers of Google, the world’s most ambitious corporate data
collector—is a game that provides a privileged site of analysis for how citizen-subjects willingly submit to
the datafication of their mobile lives. Finally, we turn to Roberto Esposito’s theories of gift-giving and
community reciprocity in order to consider the sociopolitical implications of this development, arguing
that Google “immunizes” itself from the community on which it capitalizes by continuously collecting and
redirecting that community’s gift of pervasive surveillance—a gift, most importantly, for which Google
structures its own conditions of reciprocity.
Ingress and the Mobile Playing-Subject
Ingress plays with several different game design genres; it is a multiplayer location-based mobile
game(LBMG)—a game that utilizes GPS-tracking systems, locational data, and mobile devices—that also
incorporates augmented and alternate reality (Deterding et al. 2011) components.1 As an LBMG that
operates as an alternate reality game (ARG) with augmented features, Ingress layers game mechanics and
narrative devices over real-world locations and events and it is reliant on situated social and geographic
networks (de Souza e Silva and Hjorth 2009). ARGs like Ingress, therefore, are often described as
pervasive games, where the boundaries of play directly align with physical locations and real-world events
(Montola, Stenros, and Waern 2009). T.L. Taylor and Beth Kolko (2003) note that ARGs operate as
examples of “boundary play” (Nippert-Eng 2005) in which players accept gamespace as a transgressive
liminality through which they negotiate, and often intentionally muddy, the porous areas between “virtual”
and “real” activities. Oftentimes ARGs incorporate non-players, such as bystanders, law enforcement, and
family members, into the gaming experience. And personal technologies—such as fax machines, cell
phones, pay phones and public meeting spaces—add additional layers into augmented reality gameplay by
disrupting the experiential borders between gaming and everyday life (Stenros, Waern, and Montola 2012;
Taylor and Kolko 2003).2 In fact, as a number of scholars have noted, it is often the thrill of disrupting
everyday routines with performative play that attracts players to pervasive ARGs (Montola et al. 2009;
Stenros et al. 2012). These games, therefore, thrive on media saturation and utilize it as a basis for
merging simulation-based play into everyday activities, thus creating environments in which gameplay is
1LBMGs have come to the forefront as a new brand of playful mobility that creates new dynamics of networked spatial practice
(Chan 2008; Gazzard 2011; Licoppe 2009). LBMGs like Ingress work as a type of mobile interface that helps constitute the kind
of hybrid space that we have described throughout this essay (de Souza e Silva 2006). In Ingress’s particular brand of hybridity,
game mechanics, player mobi …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!