Mr Francis Curle told me howe one Dr Bullein, the Queenes kinsman, had a dog which he doted on, soe much that the Queene vnderstanding of it requested he would graunt hir one desyre, and he should haue what soeuer he would aske. Shee demaunded his dogge; he gave it, and “Nowe Madame” quoth he, “you promised to give me my desyre.” “I will,” quoth she. “Then I pray you giue me my dog againe.”
January 3, 2014 § Leave a comment
Bogost writes, “hyperemployment offers a subtly different way to characterize all the tiny effort we contribute to Facebook and Instagram and the like. It’s not just that we’ve been duped into contributing free value to technology companies (although that’s also true), but that we’ve tacitly agreed to work unpaid jobs for all these companies.” This tacit agreement, however, extends beyond social media and e-mail and is really a form of housework and maintenance for our daily lives. In that regard, I wonder if calling the cozy arrangement between digital technologies, data economies, and invisible labor “employment” runs the danger of side-stepping the deeper (gendered and racialized) antagonisms inherent in the distinction between what is considered labor and what is considered “care.” read more
PHOTOGRAPH: [unattributed]
Tagged: against efficiency machines, digital labor, employment, feminism, feminized labor, get it done day, hyperemployment, ian bogost, invisible labor, karen gregory, microsoft, milgram experiment, mimi thi nguyen, national labor relations act, share the work, social reproduction, trebor scholz, unpaid jobs, unpaid work
Leave a Reply