Entry: Information and Communication Technologies

Bit transmission technologies are not communication technologies! I argue that most socalled Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are neither information nor communication technologies. They are, instead, simply bit transmission technologies that need to be critically decompiled and rebuilt if they are ever to have any potential as communication technologies. The so-called "theory of communication" authored by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver in 1949 is the root cause of this widespread misunderstanding of transmission-as-communication. As one example, I examine the technical underpinning of so-called “automatic translation” technologies to illustrate this critical flaw in almost all contemporary “communication” technologies. I am especially concerned with the way existing ICTs dumb down the content of conversation, exclude communicational context and participation, and sterilize the spaces of online interaction by employing simplistic means to condense and map information and communication exchanges. In 1949 Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver published their mathematical theory of communication (Shanon and Weaver, 1949). This theory, and subsequent work, has made it possible to understand information and communication technologies (ICTs) as technologies that transmit bits over fixed capacity channels. But isn't there a difference between transmission and communication? Transmission is successful between two people if the receiver can recreate -perhaps repeat -the sender's message. In contrast, communication is successful between two people if some form of shared understanding is achieved. Thus, the email message in my inbox written in a language unknown to me constitutes a successful transmission, but an unsuccessful communication. So -obviously -yes, there is a difference between transmission and communication. This difference between transmission and communication explains why -even as ICTs become more numerous in number and kind -communication seems to be on the wane. In short, communication technologies -as they are currently designed do not help us communicate with one another. Even though we can exchange bits with one another via the Internet, we do not necessarily communicate with one another. The ubiquity of online "flame wars" in public discussion forums illustrates the truth of this. In fact, it may very well be the case that the main result of providing universal access to the Internet would be to make it certain that groups fundamentally at odds with one another would butt heads frequently. In the words of the philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard, online exchanges can illustrate a differend, a difference so vast between participants that it can never be bridged (Lyotard, 1988). How can technologies be designed to facilitate the calm and caring exchange of questions and answers that result in mutual understanding? In the future, ICTs should be designed to facilitate conversational interaction rather than, as they often do now, simply function as conduits to transmit the bits of virtual shouting matches or ad campaigns. “The term ‘dialectic’ originates from the Greek expression for the art of conversation” (Edwards, 1967). It is worth remembering that a variety of aesthetic practices from art and design have been dependent upon an understanding of conversation or, more particularly, an understanding of dialectics. The conviction that