Course talk:LIBR559A

Citation

Gómez-Hernández, J. j., Hernández-Pedreño, M. m., & Romero-Sánchez, E. e. (2017). Social and digital empowerment of vulnerable library users of the murcia regional library, Spain. El Profesional De La Información, 26(1), 20-32.

Main Arguments

The authors argue that the library is the site of social and digital inclusion. It is a library’s function to support a community’s need for “information, communication, and learning” (21). This manifests as providing free access to uncensored resources, especially the internet. Leveling the playing field between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ is an important idea throughout the article. Immigrants and refugees are vulnerable populations that often find themselves on the losing side of the digital divide.

Theoretical Frameworks

The authors attempt to model “social exclusion” (23). A person can be in a state of integration, exclusion, or moving from one to the other. Exclusion has several dimensions: economic, workplace, training, socio-health, residential, relational, participative, and technological. A reduction in technological exclusion “can contribute to the reduction of the remaining causes of vulnerability” (24).

Method

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews and “participant observation” (22). The seventeen subjects were made up of nine vulnerable users and eight library staff. The nine vulnerable users were categorized into two groups: those that were excluded and those that were vulnerable. Vulnerability is the state between integration and exclusion. The authors identified themselves, as if to acknowledge their own biases. The data was gathered by nine students in the final year of their “information & documentation science, pedagogy & social work” (23). Which seems to be a more comprehensive description for what we study. It appears that the authors did not collect the data themselves.

Pitfalls

The authors did not acknowledge how the goals (social and digital inclusion) are compromised by the divisive nature of computers. There is a picture (p. 30) of cubicles, alongside it reads “there is a kinds of spatial separation created, so as not to mix.” This makes me wonder if personal computers can bring us together. There is no acknowledgment of the cultural imperialism that comes along with the internet. In this article access to the internet is good. Full stop. It is odd to study immigrants and not consider assimilation.

Citation

Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13-36. doi:10.1177/1469540509354673

Annotation

According to Ritzer and Jurgenson, it is considered that capitalism has shifted from factory production dominance, to consumption dominance. In this sense, the shopping mall has overtaken the factory as the “centre of the economy.” The authors, however, argue, that prosumption (both production and consumption) dominates current capitalism. Prosumption is the concept that the producer and the consumer are the same person. This is exemplified by things such as ATM machine, self-pumping gas, electronic kiosks at gas machines, and social media. With regard to social media, this can be seen by the user adding content to Facebook that, in turn, is used to develop advertising, or having Wikipedia readers add, and update, content. Their suggestion here is that prosumption represents a dynamic shift in capitalism which is contrasted by the idea that social media, and other from prosumption, produce only temporary workers, who have existed in all forms of capitalism. According to the others, what is unique about social media, or Web 2.0, prosumption is that there is very little quality control. For instance, YouTube does not really moderate much of the content that is upload, nor does Facebook, for the most part, vet the content that users add to the site.

I am not entirely certain that this distinction is particularly important or enlightening. Certainly, social media and the Internet create new forms of labour exploitation, but that is a consistency throughout capitalism. Instead, I would argue that social media is a recent modality that labour is exploited through. The goal of all capitalism, almost by definition, is to create the most with the least, while maintaining a stable number of consumers. Free labour, by any means, has only been inhibited by the need to produce consumers for what is being produced. Shifts in technology have always occurred, and something like social media is a new arena for the same form of exploitation.

Citation

Arvidsson, A., & Colleoni, E. (2012). Value in informational capitalism and on the internet. The Information Society, 28(3), 135-150. doi:10.1080/01972243.2012.669449

Annotation

Arvidsson and Colleoni argue that prosumption, in the arena of social media, cannot be explained using Marx’s labour theory of value. Marx’s labour theory of value suggests that only labour time creates value, and then the commodities produced via such labour is solid for a profit. With social media, however, labour cannot accurately be quantified into time, because users are not “on the clock.” In addition, profit generally comes in the form of market value, rather than direct commodity exchange. They also suggest that, based off of profits versus the number of users, “exploitation” accounts for very little. In other words, Facebook, and other social media sites, make very little, yearly, per user. Finally, when it comes to value, a more accurate representation of value comes in the form of brand value, which is translated into market value. Brand value does not measure profit but, instead, user engagement. For instance, Facebook’s market value, which is based mostly on investments, is exponentially higher than its ad-generated revenue. As a solution, Arvidsson and Colleoni advocate redistribution of the value that circulates on financial markets, rather than the redistribution of profit that is accrued through ad-generated revenue.

This is an interesting take, but there are a few concerns. First, by focusing on Facebook, Colleoni and Arvidsson ignore all of the either social media platforms which also create ad-generated profit; Facebook users use other social media platforms as well. Second, the authors seem to think that the small amount that Facebook generates per user, mitigates the fact that billions of human hours are being exploited, for profit, yearly. In this case, the focus seems to be on price, rather than value, in the Marxian sense. Finally, Arvidsson and Colleoni’s solution, is more of a suggestion that has not at all been fleshed out in the article, than something that could potentially be implemented in its current state. That said, Arvidsson and Colleoni admit that more research needs to be performed in this area.

Citation

Rey, P. J. (2012). Alienation, exploitation, and social media. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 399-420. doi:10.1177/0002764211429367

Annotation

Rey begins by positing that our current society is not only characterized by an abundance of material goods, but it is also characterized by an abundance of digital information. Involved in this is social media, particularly Facebook. Facebook generates profit not from selling a commodity for a surplus but, instead, generates it by exploiting user-generated information for means of targeted advertising. This is a form of immaterial production which is an adaptation of capitalist exploitation. In this sense, Rey uses the term “exploitation” as being completely distinct, and separated, from “alienation.” Rey argues that while users of social media are exploited, they are not alienated because social media does not cause their intellectual lives to be alienated from their physical lives. In other words, social media is not physical labour and users of social media are essentially volunteers; there is no estrangement from their humanity, in the Marxian sense. Even when being informed of exploitation through prosumption, users are accepting as long as they are able to do what they want to do on social media. Social media generates profit through consumption, and because consumption is a “subjective intentionality,” it is not a form of alienation. Additionally, when it comes to social media and a digital economy, “labor itself is no longer coerced by the threat of deprivation of biological needs.”

Initially, I thought that this was a trivial distinction but I appreciated how Rey made the distinction to argue that the capitalist mode of production is even more insidious because a lack of alienation can create a lack of class consciousness. Traditionally, labour was a structured activity that required physical bodies to be at physical locations performing physical labour for a certain period of time every day. Now, with digital information and prosumption, users are being exploited constantly, while either not recognizing it or being apathetic to it.

Areas / Topics / Keywords

Labour, social media, alienation

According to Marx, a necessary component of Capitalism is constant growth (p. 99). This component has implications for all aspects of society. Growth, in terms of Capitalism, involves accumulation. In the 14th century, there was a shift from measuring time by day, to measuring it by hour (p. 101). This created a demarcation in the day, between labour time and leisure time. Because there are only so many hours in the day, corporations began to promote “prosumption,” which is a type of consumption that also creates economic growth (p. 111). Prosumption is particularly evident in social media. As Fuchs writes, “on social media, users create and reproduce content, profiles that contain personal data, social relations, affects, communications and communities” (p. 112). This information is sold to advertisers, who use it to sell commodities through the creation of advertisements that are tailored to specific user profiles. Even though this is a form of exploitation, users voluntarily submit data during “leisure” time. To Fuchs, this is not a blurring of the demarcation between labour time and leisure time but, rather, it is an expansion of labour time at the expense of leisure time (p.112). In other words, it effectively adds, or accumulates, more hours to the day.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with Fuchs' theoretical framework, he does an admirable job of distilling a complex, and overlooked, consequence of social media. The ideas presented are important to consider for social media users, even though they may not augment the behaviours of most. In terms of libraries, and librarians, promoting a Marxist labour theory of value interpretation of social media may not be entirely tenable, but it might be worthwhile in terms of educational opportunities to patrons with regard to how their personal, voluntarily supplied, information is used, by advertisers, within the capitalist system.

I have moved this discussion thread into the page Course:LIBR559A/Fuchs, C. (2014)

Citation

Hampton, K., Livio, O. & Sessions, L. (in press). The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication. 255 - 264.

Main Arguments

The authors propose that wireless technology (as opposed to cell phones) facilitate a trend towards “privatism” which has decreased the diversity of opinions that people are exposed to (5). We use the wireless connection on our iPhone to strengthen existing relationships, rather than make new ones. The authors report that a parallel trend is occurring in the conglomerization of media providers. The effect is similar, diverse perspectives are increasingly less available.

Theoretical Frameworks

We are envisioned as boats that become caught in wifi whirlpools that give us tunnel vision that illuminates distant members of our tribe. There is a sense of Technological Determinism about this article, though the term never appears. No theory officially informs this article. It is as if the authors are innocently saying: let us simply look and write down our observations. The word ethnography is used without acknowledgment of the burden that comes with it.

Method

The researchers observed many wifi users from afar, and a few wifi users up close. The subjects observed from afar analyzed in terms of their behavior. It appears that the researchers were unable to see what was displayed on these subjects’ screens. The subjects observed in person were analyzed in terms of the websites they visited. This ethnography was conducted at various locations, at various times of day, and subjects were offered a monetary incentive to participate.

Pitfalls

It is unclear how useful the researchers’ data gathering method was. Not knowing what websites subjects were looking at seems to negate the possibility of drawing any conclusions about surfing habits. This study would benefit by giving the reader more context. If we are meant to understand that a change has occurred, then what came before now? My recollection is that cell phones entrenched old relationships just the same. The authors conclude by claiming that wifi facilitates greater participation in the public sphere. But if we are going out in public just to message our existing contacts, I am not sure how this claim can be valid.

Citation

Chandler, J. (2012). “Obligatory technologies.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(4). 225 – 264.

Main Arguments

Jennifer Chandler argues that there are three main mechanisms that explain why we feel obliged to adopt technologies: competition, dependency, and ideologies/norms/values. Since technologies “extend human capacities,” those who use them gain a competitive advantage (255). Dependency can arise from two sources: our tendency to look for technological fixes, and actual dependency (as in the case of agriculture or medicine). Ideologies may oblige us to adopt technology, which is illustrated where the law forces individuals to use medical technologies (or face negligence).

Theoretical Frameworks

Chandler briefly examines Technological Determinism and Social Constructivism before stating that her beliefs reflect current scholarship that understands technological change to be a mixture of these models. She favors the interpretation originally put forth by Hughes (in 1994) that “social constructivists have a key to understanding the behaviors of young systems; technical determinists come into their own with the mature ones” (257).

Method

Chandler draws her evidence mainly from legal precedents as well as from issues in bioethics. She reports that where pharmaceuticals are available to treat conditions, “some courts will view their non-use as negligent” (260). The author gives various examples of technologies that have been normalized and enforced by law. It seems that sociology of technology has been explored in the fields of medicine and genetics (genetically modified food) providing a rich source of information on the topic.

Pitfalls

I have this section for all my reviews, but cannot think of anything overlooked or taken for granted in this article. If pressed the only critique stems from my skepticism that bioethics has been pursued by scholars of integrity. Part of me sees potential in appropriating bioethics into discourse about ICTs. But another part of me is skeptical of a medical industry that has often not done due diligence in testing emerging technologies, but rather debated the “moral questions about their non-use” (260).

Citation

Rafael, E. (2013). Technology as a social system: A systems theoretical conceptualization. Philippine Sociological Review, 61(2), 319-347. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/43486378

Main Arguments

Erwin Rafael proposes that technology is conceptualized as either “state of the art” or “obsolete” (322). This is the key to forecasting where technology is headed. Technology is “autopoietic” (self-producing); it is constantly making itself anew, based on what parts of it society judged as not working (341). On the one hand Rafael appears to be saying: technology springs from necessity. On the other he appears to glimpse something more profound when he claims that we must “observe the observer” (328). Rafael prompts us to go beyond the question of who is responsible, to then study the desires of that agent.

Theoretical Frameworks

Rafael positions his theory as a departure from both Technological Determinism and the Social Construction of Technology. He claims that his model is more comprehensive because it does not limit the conception of technologies to merely objects (322). Rafael dislikes the objectification of technology, it is the “conceptual weakness” of previous theories (322). What we see as the artifact is only a by-product of social relationships.

Method

This work is a historiography. That is to say it reports on how we have discussed the entanglement of sociology with technology. Themes that appear similar are pulled out and considered trains of thought. Whether or not this synthesis makes sense is the judgement of the author. Although the author’s hypothesis is likely peer-reviewed and peer-approved.

Pitfalls

First and foremost this work suffers from a lack of materiality. If the idea is that artifacts are only a fraction of what constitutes a technology, then what exemplifies this? Rafael does not offer examples. I am left unconvinced that this model is beneficial to adopt. Perhaps this arises from the ambiguity of what the model is. The only clear idea is that we need a departure from previous theories. Rafael is facilitating the autopoietic nature of scholarship. Argument for argument’s sake.

Baker, Paul, and Amanda Potts. "‘Why Do White People Have Thin Lips?’ Google And The Perpetuation Of Stereotypes Via Auto-Complete Search Forms". Critical Discourse Studies 10.2 (2013): 187-204. Web. 9 June 2017.

The purpose of Baker’s & Potts’s (2013) article is to address social issues such as identity, representation, prejudice and stereotyping on the internet. The authors challenge the idea of the internet as a platform that promotes democratization. They refute the claim that the anonymity provided by the internet breaks down the communication barriers that divide society by class, race, and gender. They claim the internet only reinstalls cultural biases and stereotypes and is not different from traditional modes of communication in this respect.

Baker & Potts (2013) make their case by pointing out the abundance of stereotyping results on Google’s “Autocomplete”, a feature which aims to guess what users are attempting to search for while they type in their search queries. They regard Autocomplete, in this context, as a ‘window into the collective internet consciousness’.

Baker & Potts (2013) conducted experiments that involved starting Google searches on different identity groups (races, religious groups, genders, etc.) and carefully recording and coding the results of Google’s Autocomplete suggestions. The searches used for Baker’s & Potts’s (2013) experiment include ‘What do gay men…’, ‘Why do black…’ etc. and the data gathered was the autocompletion suggestions provided by Google.

The theoretical framework used in this article is the social construct of technology as Baker & Potts (2013) argue that society’s values are perpetuated in the technology built and used by humans. They state that the internet was thought of as a tool for democratization in its early stages but age-old values of society linger in the new technology. This article adds to the body of works in the fields of sociology of technology and information searching.

The article effectively uses appropriate research methods to prove that there is an abundance of stereotypical content produced by Google Autocomplete. The data produced by the research was also processed to reveal other information about the different stereotypes associated with different social groups. However, the purpose of identifying the different stereotypes most often associated with different social groups was not comprehensively stated.

Keywords from the article include: Google; identity; representation; stereotypes; religion; sexuality; gender; ethnicity

Aleinikoff, T. A., & Klusmeyer, D. (2001). Plural Nationality: Facing the Future in a Migratory World. In T. A. Aleinikoff, & D. Klusmeyer, Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices (pp. 63-88). Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer provide a historical understanding of nationality from the perspective of the nation-state. The authors then develop and discuss categories of obtaining (dual) citizenship. Discussions and a survey approach include the tension of single and plural nationalities and traditional provisions for obtaining (one or more) nationality. Space is given to the discussion of the loss of nationality, but this is done mostly within the context of moving from one nationality to another. The perspective of people without a nation is given only brief discussion. Topics include: migration, nationality, international law, state to state tension, state to individual tension Inserting various technologies into Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer’s discussion a model very much like Lessig’s regulation imposing upon an individual. By understanding the tensions described within the article an understanding of sociotechnical structures evolves. Concepts of how borders are conceived and passed through begin to emerge. Critical understanding of borders and nationalities provide a framework for examining the management of tensions between privilege of person and/or technology. This article is not written from the perspective of socialtechnology. Rather from this writer’s perspective it is useful especially as a leg in Lessig’s model of regulation. The lack of critical engagement with stateless people is a blow to the integrity of the article, yet the way other topics were effectively handled points to a conceptual model for the continuation of scholarship not considered. The continued scholarship too invites adaptation of Lessig and perhaps adoption from other theoretical models.

Vardy, M., & Smith, M. (2017). Resilience. Environmental Humanities, 9(1), 175-179. doi:10.1215/22011919-382919 Vardy and Smith write a succinct primer and critique on resilience theory. Resilience theory as described in the article is applied in diverse fields from “urban planning, international security, environmental policy, financial regulation, development economics” (p 175), as well as “emergency preparedness, self-help, and libraries” (Berg, Galvan, & Tewell, 2017). Resilience theory is viewed as being applied without regard to appropriate circumstances. The across the board application of narratives of resilience encourage narratives of system survival and de-emphasizing elements “marginal to system survival” (p 176). To demonstrate their thesis, Vardy and Smith summarize existing literature of resilience theory while examine those rhetorics in a framework of precarity. Concepts: resilience, precarity, vulnerability, system survival, radical change, adaptation The concepts of the article seek to delineate what is advantageous to a system from what is other to the system; the concepts seek to separate what is useful to a system versus what is not useful. Resilience theory is presented as a “discourse …to present narratives that all too often adhere to univocal holism and homogeneity in a way that excludes the messiness of the world” (p 176); it can be thought of as a kind of determinism. While technological determinism claims a technology as the progenitor of all that come after, resilience theory relates all elements with an agency and as either belonging or not belonging to systems. Those elements belonging to the system have their agency validated by belonging to the system. Those elements not belonging to the system are marginalized and their agency endangered. Understanding resiliency theory from a design perspective allows a more nuanced interpretation of social constructions. As resilience theory moves forward in critique academics are taking up the model to examine how individuals participate in institutions. Academics are taking up the challenge, implicit in resilience theory, that individuals are responsible as individuals for success or failure within systems which are designed for various purposes. An excellent accompaniment to this article is the presentation reference earlier; citation: Berg, J., Galvan, A., & Tewell, E. (2017). Academic Libraries and the False Promises of Resiliency. Libraries and Archives in the Anthropocene Colloquium, (p. 32). Retrieved from https://eamontewell.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/academic-libraries-and-the-false-promises-of-resiliency-laac-2017.pdf

Grimemlmann, J. (2009). The Google Dilemma. New York Law School Review, 53(1), 939-950.  

The purpose of Grimemlmann’s (2009) article is to affirm that search engines, especially Google, have a great amount of power and to depict the many ways in which individuals, organizations and political entities have tried to influence Google to wield some of the great power it has to serve their various objectives. Some of the individuals, organizations and political entities who have attempted to control Google for their benefit have succeeded, others have not.

In this article, Grimemlmann (2009) states that search engines have immense influence on all internet users as they influence what gets seen or heard on the internet. He also states that Google is by far the most powerful search engine.

According to Grimemlmann (2009), various entities manipulate the power of Google in different ways. These include:

• Googlebombing: This term refers to a method of creating various fake links to trick Google’s algorithms into ranking the “Googlebombed” webpage higher on its results list. The Google algorithm aims organize search results by popularity where most linked to pages are defined as the most popular. “Googlebombing” takes advantage of the automation process, making even unpopular and irrelevant webpages ranked higher.

• Lawsuits: Some organizations and individuals have sued Google for their positioning on its search results list.

• Government/ Legislative censorship: Some countries have requested to completely remove some search results from Google. The reasons for this sort of government action can range from protecting vulnerable members of society to pure political propaganda.

Grimemlmann (2009) uses relevant case studies to illustrate his points and to reach a conclusion. The theoretical framework for this article is the politics of technology as Grimemlmann (2009) argues that technology (Google) has great power over social, economic and political life, leading to a power struggle for control over the technology. This article adds to the body of works that criticize the role of search engines in society, the democracy of Google, the politics of technology and internet censorship.

The author discusses various relevant and interesting points about how various entities can aim to manipulate Google’s power for their own agendas but brushes off Google as though it was a completely dismissive entity with no agendas of its own. He does not discuss the ways in which Google can use its immense power to shape society, economics and politics in-depth. I believe this is missing the most important point of discussion on the topic.

Important keywords from the article include: Google, search engines, censorship, Googlebombing

Aberg, J., & Shahmehri, N. (2001, March). An empirical study of human Web assistants: Implications for user support in Web information systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 404-411). ACM.

In this article, the authors conducted a field study on the effectiveness (attitude and efficiency) of integrating human assistance into web information systems. Based on the data collected from two questionnaire surveys, the authors summarized some recommendations and design guidelines for decision makers and developers of web systems.

The authors claimed that the integration of human assistance helped to reinforce the usability of the web system, and their view was supported by the data collected from the two questionnaire surveys.

To evaluate user attitude, the authors used trust, fun-factor, and atmosphere as the main evaluation factors; while they considered ease of use, quality of support, users' view of human support, user’s usage purpose and the general system feasibility as important evaluation factors of system efficiency. They found out that most users had a positive response to the human support system, as they trusted the web assistance, and found their help useful. They also found out that users came from different background, thus the assistants didn't have to be native English speakers; in addition, being an assistant need to be patient and knowledgeable, and the multi-task environment can issue some stress.

Generally speaking, this article focused on the relationship between web system designing and human assistance/support, and tried to figure out a way to achieve university usability for web information systems. Specifically, in this article, user support was defined as "online support for the user tasks that the web information system is intended for". In addition, they emphasized that web information system served people with various backgrounds and with various needs. In their study, they also used the model that described how users using the web information system and when and how were they asking for human support.

This article followed the SCOT framework since it not only put user needs and usabilities at the first place in designing and system evaluation, but also grouped users based on their backgrounds- technologies are going to be adjusted and revised based on how users access and assess the technologies.

This article provided some novel and interesting ideas: on the other hand, this article also thought from the human support’s perspective, and discussed what makes a good user support, and also explored if it’s necessary to provide multi-media channels for communication.

However, there are some problems as well: although this article was trying to find recommendations and solutions for universal usability design, it ignored the big issue of different accessibility levels. According to its survey results, users were satisfied with only having the text-chat function while asking an online assistant for help. However, I think this recommendation actually limit the usability of the system, at lease makes it less convenient for some people who has difficulty in reading, typing, etc.

Potentially, the findings of the positive effectiveness of having online support could inspire some libraries in system development: should they provide online reference services. In BC, some academic libraries are holding a program called AskAway, where patrons can connect to an online librarian for help. So is it a good idea to introduce this model to public libraries? In this article, the authors talked about comparing the benefit and cost of having online support before adding human support service to online systems-- so it would be a discussion for the future library communities.

Idiegbeyan-ose, J., Nkiko, C., Idahosa, M., & Nwokocha, N. (2016). Digital divide: Issues and strategies for intervention in nigerian libraries. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 18(3), 29. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1844236531?accountid=14656

This article talks about how to use ICT to bridge the information gap existed in current Nigerian libraries, and reinforce the development of the methods for information storage, retrieval, and provision process in the digital age.

In this article, the authors focused on the connection between ICTs, digital divide and the concept of digital library. Specifically, ICTs referred to the information technologies including computers and their peripherals, that could be used to support the information storage, catalog, retrieval and provision process. Digital divide was defined as an umbrella word to describe the inequality of technology application, including people’s different technology skills (digital literacy), their imbalanced accessibility to technologies, as well as their inequitable access to technologies and other Internet-related technologies. Lastly, digital library was described as a library that stored information electronically and made information accessible to users through electronic systems or network.

From Idiegbeyan-ose and Nkiko’s perspective, on the one hand, Nigerian libraries must adapt the changing trend and find ways to manage and share their resources in electronic format, and shift their focus from library-centered to information-centered mode. On the other hand, by using ICTs, Nigerian libraries can seize this opportunity to change into more effective and supportive information centers. Technologies can simply make searching more easily, and provide more information with less cost, and to reach more audience.

From my understanding, the analyze of this article was based on the Actor/Actant-Network Theory framework, as it realized the deep connection between librarians, ICTs and library users, etc. Firstly, the authors considered ICTs as the keys to improving libraries in Nigeria. What's more, they also pointed out that there were increasing information needs of the libraries' patrons. Finally, they also highlighted the importance of training both librarians and users to improve their information literacy, thus can ensure the effectiveness of ICTs.

Speaking of novel ideas introduced by this article, it not only pointed out that ICTs were the most important tools to improve the information accessibility in Nigeria libraries, but also found out some existed setbacks of ICTs application in 2010. In addition, It also came up with some practical solutions that could solve some of the current problems. What's more, the authors also reflected on some efforts made by some world organizations, which were counted as a large portion of social development in Nigeria as well. However, this article didn't put other social factors, such as the influence of government and local organizations, or the geographic differences, into consideration. Therefore, further research is needed.

In a word, this article pointed out some practical methods for Nigeria libraries to improve their services with the assistance of new technologies, it could be used as a guidance for the development of digital libraries in some undeveloped countries and areas worldwide.

According to Fisher, traditionally, there have been two dominant, and competing, perspectives within Marxist media studies. One involves the idea that the mass media peddles ideological content in order to reinforce the existing power structures and social order. The second suggests that the“the political economy of communication” is based on the monopolization of corporate media and “links between the government and media” (p. 1111). An emergent perspective, however, is the audience labour theory which “constructs the media as a dynamic site of struggle between the audience (labour) and media providers (capital)” (p.1112). The suggestion here is that the main form of exploitation used by media, including social media, comes in the form of advertising which the audience passively consumes. This creates surplus value, created by the audience, which, in Marx's terms, is a form of exploitation. As an example, Fisher discusses Facebook's now defunct Sponsored Stories, and the class action lawsuit that followed. A Sponsored Story was created as a result of a number of different Facebook actions, including liking a page or a product, checking in at a specific commercial location, and sharing a commercial website. Once this occurred, the action could then be rendered into an advertisement with the name of the user attached to it in the form of an involuntary endorsement. During the class action lawsuit, the plaintiff argued that Facebook, through Sponsored Stories, was creating an unpaid workforce of millions, and the court agreed.

The significance of this is that “it shows that audience labour theory is not merely an abstract framework to understand social reality, but informs real social agents and thus has a concrete political significance” (p. 1119). From the perspective of librarians, as information professionals, it is important to note that information can be used, and manipulated, without the knowledge of the user, and how that can impact a patron's experience with interacting with information mediums.