This week we are very much diving into the ways that technology is deeply social, contingent, and socially constructed, while maintaining a bit of firmness in the set frame a technology can have due to it’s affordances and material existence. In this, technologies are both the products of and contribute to everyday practices. How people use technology varies wildly depending on social class, race, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, sexuality, ability status, etc. And often folks find creative ways to misappropriate, reappropriate, or use technology contra to it’s design purpose. For this discussion board, build on these insights and post an original posting of 200-250 words, and then comment on 2 of your classmates posts that gets at the following about the interpretive flexibility and framings of a particular technology:
Do some research (provide a link to where you are drawing your info from such as news article or blog post) and find a piece of technology that was either used against its designed purpose and/or utilized for practices and outcomes that were not within the original intended boundaries of use for that technology.
Discuss the original design intention for your technology, and then discuss the novel use of it
Why did the user group do something different with the technology? What message were they attempting to communicate with this new use and/or what goals/purposes were they attempting to reach?
Provide your perspective on how social, political, or cultural conditions influenced the use of the technology you chose in this case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqjUqqANnK0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i9vIj5-rxk