Comps Day 3: Digital Rhetoric

This answer connects the relationship between digital technology and personal experience. This answer has multiple branching paths. There are fractals, fragments, and loops. The arguements are not meant to be linear, complete, or perfect. [[Continue|Getting to Know You]]

Hello, (print: $name). (set: $gender to "Male")(set: $gvar to 1) Isn't it interesting that you can identify as male just by saying you are male? In this context, I don't have a method to dispute your claim. Gurak and Antonijevic claim anonymity is a powerful influence on digital discourse and allows for identity play. If you want, you could go through the whole answer under a fake name, with a different gender, or do something else. [[Continue|Starting Point]]

Hello, (print: $name). (set: $gender to "Female")(set: $gvar to 0) Isn't it interesting that you can identify as female just by saying you are male? In this context, I don't have a method to dispute your claim. Gurak and Antonijevic claim anonymity is a powerful influence on digital discourse and allows for identity play. If you want, you could go through the whole answer under a fake name, with a different gender, or do something else. [[Continue|Starting Point]]

Hello, (print: $name). Identifying as something other than male or female is an intereting choice. Digital rhetorics point out our binary thinking. Many programs ask for male or female because it's easier to sort or program In this case, I had to program multiple variables rather than a simple yes/no. I took a [[shortcut|Building a Project]], but you might not have seen it. It's okay if you didn't. Not everything is visible. [[Continue|Starting Point]]

Interesting. You have taken a role by not giving gender data. Reyman argues humans play a role in identifying goals for automated programs and making decisions about how databases are constructed and how data will be put together through particular sequences and combinations and associations to arrive at a desired output. [["Desired output"|Desire]] raises some important questions. [[Continue|Starting Point]]

Where would you like to start? (set: $path to $path+1) [[Building a Project]] [[Desire]] (if: $path > 1)(print: "[[End]]")

I built a Twine project, like this one, for WSCA. As part of that project, I created a small narrative around a racialized traffic stop. This narrative had particular code working behind the scenes that randomly assigned the user a race. It also contained a random-number generator that determined if the user got [pulled over]<c1|. (click: ?c1)[If the race variable was "white," the user had a 1:6 chance in getting pulled over. If the race variable was "black," the chance was 1:2. A colleague asked me if I could create other variables to build an intersectional understanding of race through the narrative. [[That couldn't work|Problems With Sim]]]

Desire is an important aspect of life, and it's an important aspect of digital life. In my particular case, the outcome of my life was partially determined by a series of nonhuman agents. I met my wife through Tinder. Like many mobile dating platforms, Tinder works through a combination of geotechnology, algorithmic sorting based on user data, and mobile networks. At the time, my future wife and I shared no common social relations. We had no friends in common, never attended the same events, and we didn't live in the same area of Phoenix. Tinder, in our case, acted to introduce us. Our "first impression" of each other was a digital first impression. [[Continue|Agency]]

The problem with making an an intesectional digital narrative is the need for quantitative information about various structures of oppression. Structuring information in binaries, like commonly done with computers, is often easy. Dealing with oppressed/oppressor or have/have not makes programming and rhetorical argument fairly simple. Gunkle argues structualism influences a significant portion of our thinking about digital technology. Pokemon GO is something that brings people together as a community, or its something that forces people to focus on their phones instead of each other. These arguments often make little progress and fail to provide other options. The binary structure was easy to program because it only needed to consider race (and then only two options). But the narrative was misleading because it only counted race as a factor in a police stop. Is that a problem? [[Yes|Bad Simulation]] [[No|Good Simulation]] [[It Depends|Amb Sim]]

That's fair. A question worth considering is how someone could program intersecting oppressions in a meaninful way. My simulation worked on random number generation. In order for the outcome of the system to work, meaningful narrative data needed to be quantified. As a matter of procedure, ideas that can be expressed numerically are more significant. There are already programs of your gender going on right now. Your gender is currently valued at (if: $gender = "Male" or "Female")[(print: $gvar)](else:)[(print: "ERROR: UNDEFINED")] In a procedural system that relates race to gender, how would these numbers interact? Should I add them? Multiply? Set a range of numbers for each race and gender to reflect other things like attractiveness? I could make any of these choices, and each choice would be rhetorically signficant. The procedure I programmed would have rhetorical effects. Bogost argues that system interactions and procedures work as rhetorical texts, and my choices would send a message. [[Continue|Sim Message]]

Thanks, (print: $name). However, it's worth considering some of the procedural issues aside from race. I made the choice to vastly inflate the likely odds of being stopped by police. If I used the actual odds for both black and white drivers, most people encountering the narrative would not get stopped at all. The white driver's 1:6 ratio and the black driver's 1:2 ratio reflects the higher chances of a black driver being stopped, and this difference is proportional. In highlighting the difference of the relationships to the state based on race, I exaggerated the activism of the state. Bogost argues procedures and system interactions have rhetorical significance. My argument highlights the issue of racial discrimination, and having more people stopped allows people to see the racial disparities more quickly. However, my procedure distorts the actual relationship between police and citizens. I made one trade for another. [[Continue|Sim Message]]

Gunkle would be proud of you, (print: $name) The white driver's 1:6 ratio and the black driver's 1:2 ratio reflects the higher chances of a black driver being stopped, and this difference is proportional. In highlighting the difference of the relationships to the state based on race, I exaggerated the activism of the state. Bogost argues procedures and system interactions have rhetorical significance. My argument highlights the issue of racial discrimination, and having more people stopped allows people to see the racial disparities more quickly. However, my procedure distorts the actual relationship between police and citizens. I made one trade for another. In terms of representing a truthful argument, what qualifies as truth is unclear. [[Continue|Sim Message]]

(if: $gender is "Male" or $gender is "Female")[The simulation I made showed the problems of trying to structure oppression using binary forms, but it also demonstrated the limitation of relying on computational procedures alone. Facing the question about quantifying identities, I considered both the narrative potential of a simulation with multiple oppressions and the dangers in my procedural choices. A narrative relying on random number generation will struggle when variables are not easily reduced to numbers.] (else:)[The simulation I made showed the problems of trying to structure oppression using binary forms, but it also demonstrated the limitation of relying on computational procedures alone. Glitches often reveal the issues. For example, (print: $name), your gender counts as (print: $gender). The error there is the program trying to find your gender and not being able to assign it a number. Not defining your gender in a traditional category leaves you undefined and limits the smooth functioning of this project. It's fun to do that with projects like this one. Would you do the same thing if the potential consequences included losing health care? Getting arrested? Facing deportation? The inability to find your identity in a system could prevent others from watching you, but it could prevent others from protecting you as well.] [[Return to Start|Starting Point]]

The combination of networked technologies made it possible for me to encounter my future wife. We still needed to have in-person dates and conversations, but our initial encounter came through an automated system. Like most social meetings, various agents were involved in helping my future wife and I find each other. In our case, our primary agents were not human. They included our mobile phone providers, geolocation software, Facebook (a necessary account to be on Tinder at the time), wi-fi connections, and the various people and procedures to maintain these networks. These networks exposed us both to different issues. In my case, I shared a platform with many of my students. While I never set my age range to scoop up students, I faced the possibility that my students could find my dating profile. I needed to navigate a system that would attract potential partners while not threatening my professional position. Zappen argues a digital rhetoric requires more than traditonal modes of persuasion. It requires an array of technical, mangerial, and communication skills, including the ability to negotiate the complex interrelationships between humans and the physical world. [[Navigating]]

Discourse in digital spaces requires, as Zappen claims, the involvement of equipment within equipment. Digital rhetoric requires discourses within [discourses]<c1|. (click: ?c1)[In my case, I needed to convince someone to go on a date with me while maintaining a message that would not be embarassing or offensive to people who come across it by accident. I needed to select location setting and age options carefully to reduce the possibility of appearing in the potential matches of [students.]<c2|] (click: ?c2)[In addition, I needed to create a message that was multimodal. I needed to explain myself and attract someone within a limited number of characters. I needed something that stood out without reading false. I needed a [[picture|Selfies]]. In my case, I decided to thank people for taking the time to read my [bio.]<c3|] (click: ?c3)[Later, my wife said that my bio came across as very polite. She found that different from other kinds of discourse. Tinder, in her experience, was not a place of polite conversation. The affordances of distance did not always bring out the most friendly discourse. Distributed agency, according to Reyman, tends to diffuse feelings of [responsibility.]<c4|] (click: ?c4)[In my case, I worked with Tinder to find a partner, and my wife and I both worked with Tinder's systems to find each other. We can't take all the credit, but do we say we "met on Tinder" as if Tinder was a place? Do we say, "Tinder introduced us" as if Tinder acted as deliberate matchmaker? A digital rhetoric, according to Reyman, would assign "actency" to Tinder, claiming agency's dance shifted between us (the human agents) and Tinder's non-mechanical systems. Although the example of Tinder is not political action, it is worth considering how various agents work to form relationships. Boyle, Brown, and Ceraso argue the digital is something that takes place in a variety of spaces simulatenously rather than in a single location. Agency and power flows between agents, meaning my desire to find a partner flowed through a network that was both digital and human-centered. With the digital as something everywhere and nowhere on particular, Boyle et. al. would argue I met "through Tinder" rather than "on Tinder" or "with Tinder". [[Return|Starting Point]]]

Thanks for viewing my comprehensive exam project. I intend to discuss both the content of this project and the intent in making a Twine answer during the defense portion.

Hess argues that the selfie acts as assemblage of the self, the physical space, the device, and the network. The selfie, according to Hess, positions the subject within a particular context using a mobile device with some kind of intent to distribute the photograph. Selfies reflected different things depending on the context and circumstances, but selfies on Tinder had particular meanings because of the specific network and function. All of the elements remain part of the selfie assemblage, but they take on particular meanings within Tinder. In addition, selfies have to work with other pictures and biographical information. In cases where people have multiple selfies in their profiles, they had imbricated assemblages of work. My Tinder profile lacked any selfies, which made my profile different from many of those in Tinder at the time. I had some photographer friends and enough skills in photo editing that I could get good photographs made without selfies. I had a concern that selfies would send a message that I didn't have any friends or didn't put forth much effort. I wanted to send a message of high effort, meaning I decided the selfie would send a message contrary to my desired rhetorical effect. [[Return|Navigating]]