{"id":4749,"date":"2011-10-11T08:41:33","date_gmt":"2011-10-11T12:41:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/?p=4749"},"modified":"2011-10-11T09:41:23","modified_gmt":"2011-10-11T13:41:23","slug":"chat-debating-augmented-reality-with-zeynep-tufekci","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/2011\/10\/11\/chat-debating-augmented-reality-with-zeynep-tufekci\/","title":{"rendered":"Chat: Debating Augmented Reality With Zeynep Tufekci"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"There has been some terrific debate on my theorizing of what I call “augmented reality.” In brief, I reject “digital dualism”, the\u00a0tendency\u00a0to view the on and off line as\u00a0separate\u00a0spheres, and instead argue that we should view them as enmeshed, creating what I call “augmented reality.” [I talk more about this here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Today, I am posting some of the debate that\u00a0occurred\u00a0over Twitter and another post responding to a critique<\/a> of a talk I gave on the topic.<\/p>\n

One criticism has been that the augmented reality perspective somehow obscures the important ways in which the on and offline are different. I agree that the spheres indeed have different properties. I write here<\/a> and here<\/a> about, for example, how atoms tend to be more scarce than bits. Further, I write here<\/a> about how these important differences are best viewed through the augmented lens.<\/p>\n

It is this last point which I feel is most important in responding to the specific criticisms given by Zeynep Tufekci<\/a> over Twitter. It is my hope that future conversations on this topic take into account the points made in that short essay.\u00a0I’ll post the debate, still ongoing, below.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nAn interesting dynamic of the “digital activist” sphere in the Arab Uprisings is how many know each other offline, across nations.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 4, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc becuase it is not “digital” activism! it is augmented http:\/\/t.co\/sBoH7sbT<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 4, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson … except through much effort & most of connections are first online & only then offline–very different than US for most<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 4, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson This is diff from the the way FB is naturally online\/offline. These people are not regular part of each others’ lives.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 4, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc right, but physical meetings massively important for the cause; activism, even when primarily digital, benefits from the physical<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 4, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc the importance bloggers meeting up in physical space speaks to the power of augmentation, against the idea of “digital” activism<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 4, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson Yes, the in person meetings are crucial. But there is also power in “digital” activism — and a lot of it as well.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 4, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The conversation takes off the next day when Zeynep tweets…<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nSo many stories of dangers -including torture & death- social media activists face! Nobody shld say “slacktivism” near me ever again. #ab11<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nppl could only think digital activism is “slacker” if they first wrongly think of digital & physical activisms as mostly separate @techsoc<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson In fact, the interesting discussion was sometimes online expression is not activism — but it has political consequences<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson The discussion wasn’t about that angle–in many cases in the region, it is separate. Online\/offline not always integrated.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc disagree. the over-assumption of that separation between digital and physical activism partly why “slacktivism” viewed pejoratively<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc ppl failing to see slacktivism leading to torture or non-activist online talk having material consequences = the fallacy in action!<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc seems i am saying ‘people view on\/offline too separate’ and you are saying ‘that separation still sometimes important’ – fair?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson I’m saying what you call augmentation has many levels and inflections — “online\/offline integrated” can be too flat.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc not sure i follow “levels” and “inflections”, but my sense would be that they could be best described thru augmented paradigm<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc wld be a good blog post; but i think the differences b\/w digital\/physical activism best articulated through ‘augmented’ perspective<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson … & also not forget that there is a lot of “digital only” micro-politics which does not link to offline in any direct way<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson … but it’s important not to collapse the distinction b\/w online and offline and also all the different ways they interact<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson What you call “augmented” has always been my only & default way of looking at it–so I don’t necessarily name it but … +<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc agree on\/offline have differences, but those can really only be described by taking the other into account: http:\/\/t.co\/lFzw1UIT<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Here, I am linking to my essay on this blog that deals with how the augmented paradigm does not obscure the differences between atoms and bits, but instead provides a better language to talk about these important differences.<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\nDefending and Clarifying the Term Augmented Reality \u00bb Cyborgology<\/a> <\/p>\n
Yesterday, Sang-Hyoun Pahk delivered a critique of the usage of the term augmented reality on this blog. First, thank you, criticism of this term is especially important for me (and others) because augmented reality is the fundamental unit of analysis about which I seek to describe.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The conversation picks up again for a third day.<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nSame in my region. Not everyone is as wired as US. $$$ RT @techsoc @nathanjurgenson in the region…. Online\/offline not always integrated.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
katypearce<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 5, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce @techsoc but of course the online influences those without access and those logged off<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson @techsoc umm… Not always.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
katypearce<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce @nathanjurgenson Yes, not always. That’s the point I’m making. The link can be fledgling.. I’m agreeing with @katypearce here.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @nathanjurgenson + thus, less incllinded to share w. have nots. plus ‘internet doesn’t register as credible source for have nots.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
katypearce<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @nathanjurgenson when government + media are untrustworthy, interpersonal comm is #1. Would be hard to do 2-step flow here.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
katypearce<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @katypearce the link between on\/offline just as important when people use distinct spheres<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce @techsoc augmentation comes in many flavors and these folks exist within that augmentation in different ways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce @techsoc tho wld love to see longer form discussion of y you may NOT want to think from an augmented framework. havent seen that<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce @techsoc protester not using digital tools still influenced by digitality; person not on FB still (more?) influenced by it<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce @techsoc credible source example quite good at articulating just how digitality (in its absence) has massive impact on these ppl<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce @techsoc differing outcomes depending on ones engagement w\/ digital\/physical demonstrates how the link is not “fledgling” at all<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce @techsoc downplaying the link as “fledgling” leads to a very different set of research questions and conclusions<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson @katypearce that digital world is part of this world is trivially true — (even as there are idiotic attempt to separate)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson: @katypearce But beyond that just saying it’s all augmented hides significant differences & that there are many regions+<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson: @katypearce +there are “digital only” spheres in a way you don’t see in US. (Again, beyond the trivial first-level effect)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\nAgreed RT @techsoc @nathanjurgenson: @katypearce +there are “digital only” spheres in a way you don’t see in US.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
katypearce<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@katypearce @techsoc strongly disagree. “digital only” a fallacy and conceptually obscures important relations<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @katypearce not “trivial”: much academic, popular, journalism makes bad conclusions from standpoint that holds dig\/physical seprate<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @katypearce only from augmented perspective can we articulate significant differences & impact of so-called “digital-only” spheres<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@nathanjurgenson: @katypearce well, that they do and I always rail against that. but really important not to hide vast differences.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
techsoc<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\u201c <\/span><\/td>\n@techsoc @katypearce agreed, of course. i’ll link here again: http:\/\/t.co\/lFzw1UIT<\/a> would love to hear how augmentation obscures differences<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"October 6, 2011<\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
I link again to my post arguing that the augmented perspective is the best one to describe important differences between digital and physical.<\/div>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\nDefending and Clarifying the Term Augmented Reality \u00bb Cyborgology<\/a> <\/p>\n
Yesterday, Sang-Hyoun Pahk delivered a critique of the usage of the term augmented reality on this blog. First, thank you, criticism of this term is especially important for me (and others) because augmented reality is the fundamental unit of analysis about which I seek to describe.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Follow Nathan on Twitter: @nathanjurgenson<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Follow Zeynep: @techsoc<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There has been some terrific debate on my theorizing of what I call “augmented reality.” In brief, I reject “digital dualism”, the\u00a0tendency\u00a0to view the on and off line as\u00a0separate\u00a0spheres, and instead argue that we should view them as enmeshed, creating what I call “augmented reality.” [I talk more about this here.] Today, I am posting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":559,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[12313],"tags":[46,2324,2603,10447,2954,10192,732,10781,66,12067,184],"class_list":["post-4749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chat","tag-activism","tag-augmented-reality","tag-digital","tag-digital-dualism","tag-jurgenson","tag-physical","tag-social-media","tag-storify","tag-theory","tag-tufekci","tag-twitter"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4749","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/559"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4749"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4749\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4821,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4749\/revisions\/4821"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}