The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki) - User contributions [en]

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-05-23T23:56:21Z

G: /* Confirmed */

This page is an edited version of the session design we used in the Spring 2009 iteration of IIF. Below, we have made modifications and additions based on what we learned from the session. In addition, we suggest media and readings that might be used in future iterations. Finally, while keeping the record of the activity we used, we suggest an alternate that based on the other IIF sessions in Spring 2009 would seem to be more effective than our original plan. Graham and Mark

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

====For future iterations====
* For future iterations: Bringing Prof. Hargittai helped us lay out some of the scope of Internet use that is relevant in evaluating issues in later sessions. Thus, we believe that keeping a session like this one near the beginning of any later iteration will help put in perspective the newest phenomena in online innovation and issues.

* The following video of a presentation Prof. Hargittai made at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society may be a useful substitute for enlisting her or other researchers as guests in the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5N1hjceyc&feature=player_embedded

* We believe including some more perspective on the ideas surrounding inequity and inequality itself may be helpful. Suggestions for topics of discussion include putting the international nature of the internet in dialogue with ideas such as those of Amartya Sen in "Equality of What." We feel that in our session and perhaps in the seminar in general we were not as successful as we would have hoped in incorporating the international nature of the Internet in our discussions. This is perhaps natural in a course attended largely by U.S. law students, but the discussion of equity and equality would benefit from an increased international focus.

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

====For future iterations: an alternate activity====

This case study, that of the potential utility of U.S. government-funded efforts to increase broadband penetration in the rural United States, was an artifact of the timing of the individual session. The discussion of this particular effort, we believe, was not as illuminating as another potential activity design we encountered in other sessionsnamely, the partition of the seminar into teams who compete to create solutions to the problems of inequality.

Here, the seminar may focus both on U.S. issues and international issues through assigning groups different scopes of action. One group may be assigned to come up with solutions from the perspective of being a U.S. senator, another from a seat at the United Nations, and another from a well-funded NGO, etc. Instead of the Berkman Question Tool, we would ask the teams to add sub-pages to the wiki so that solutions could survive the day of class and remain visible as directions for potential future actionalbeit conceived quickly over the period of a seminar or the few days leading up to it.

We would also propose that the solutions be presented by the groups in elevator-pitch style and then face evaluation by classmates, professors, and guests, leading to a final discussion developing the strongest idea and exploring the challenges it implies.

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

''This section remains as a record of the ideas behind the discussion we had. It may serve as a model for the types of questions one might consider when participating in a group effort to make a recommendation to the course. We found that it was difficult to get to these particular points of discussion, and view the group method as more likely to produce thoughtful discussion among members of the seminar, who will then offer better-formed ideas to the course. Those ideas, we believe, will be more fertile ground for discussion than our single case study. Finally, as noted above, we hope future iterations would consider incorporating international issues as core parts of the session, rather than as addendum.''

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?
**Mark Lloyd of Center for American Progress advocating redundancy and wider access. [http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/ubiquity-requires-redundancy/]
**S. Derek Turner, “Down Payment on Our Digital Future,” Free Press, December 2008, available online at: [http://www.freepress.net/files/DownPayment_DigitalFuture.pdf].

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]
* (optional due to late upload) [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Bans.pdf Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008)]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

== Summary of Results ==

Following Eszter's presentation, we had a discussion about the optimal way for this administration to develop a broadband policy that was sensitive to the issues of access disparity that were discussed.

AK asked a question, referencing an experiment described in the book ''Irrational Exuberance.'' The book describes a series of tests administered with different pricing for two of chocolates. When one was offered for free, people flocked immediately to it, independent of the pricing of the other given pre-existing preferences. The proposal was that the Internet should just be made free and that only in doing so could it attract more people online.

Some discussion ensued, and the classic example of Malaria Bed nets was raised. Economists found that utilization of bednets to fight malaria actually increased when people were charged for their use, as opposed to being given them. The belief is that individuals who had to invest in the tool valued it more.

Professor Fisher raised another difficult question about a fear of path dependence. An analogy was made to the federal highway system. Once the infrastructure is in place, will we be locked-in to a system that will eventually be outdated? Is the future really in wired broadband? What about wireless?

== Final thoughts ==

As noted in the notes above, the discussion in seminar covered some interesting ground, but we feel it lacked focus and failed to lead to the useful type of conclusions we hoped for in stimulating discussion of individual solutions. The issues raised by students, professors, and guests, were of great critical value, but will be used better in a case where groups of students are presenting individual ideas on behalf of the organizations they represent.

The core function of the changed structure is to take the introductory period as an opportunity to set out some of the terms of debate in Internet inequity and inequality. Hargittai's emphasis on the Web-use divide in addition to the familiar digital divide complicated the parameters of inequality. We hope future sessions can go one step further and introduce international issues. Then, teams will produce ideas through brainstorming exercises that will be evaluated by the class. The requirement to produce a wiki page for each idea makes it possible for people who are interested in these issues in the future to build on the preliminary ideas produced by the class. No sweeping, graceful solution is likely to emerge from a simple two-hour seminar, but seeds of transformative ideas may be planted.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-05-23T23:55:36Z

G: /* Summary of Results */

This page is an edited version of the session design we used in the Spring 2009 iteration of IIF. Below, we have made modifications and additions based on what we learned from the session. In addition, we suggest media and readings that might be used in future iterations. Finally, while keeping the record of the activity we used, we suggest an alternate that based on the other IIF sessions in Spring 2009 would seem to be more effective than our original plan. Graham and Mark

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

====For future iterations====
* For future iterations: Bringing Prof. Hargittai helped us lay out some of the scope of Internet use that is relevant in evaluating issues in later sessions. Thus, we believe that keeping a session like this one near the beginning of any later iteration will help put in perspective the newest phenomena in online innovation and issues.

* The following video of a presentation Prof. Hargittai made at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society may be a useful substitute for enlisting her or other researchers as guests in the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5N1hjceyc&feature=player_embedded

* We believe including some more perspective on the ideas surrounding inequity and inequality itself may be helpful. Suggestions for topics of discussion include putting the international nature of the internet in dialogue with ideas such as those of Amartya Sen in "Equality of What." We feel that in our session and perhaps in the seminar in general we were not as successful as we would have hoped in incorporating the international nature of the Internet in our discussions. This is perhaps natural in a course attended largely by U.S. law students, but the discussion of equity and equality would benefit from an increased international focus.

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

====For future iterations: an alternate activity====

This case study, that of the potential utility of U.S. government-funded efforts to increase broadband penetration in the rural United States, was an artifact of the timing of the individual session. The discussion of this particular effort, we believe, was not as illuminating as another potential activity design we encountered in other sessionsnamely, the partition of the seminar into teams who compete to create solutions to the problems of inequality.

Here, the seminar may focus both on U.S. issues and international issues through assigning groups different scopes of action. One group may be assigned to come up with solutions from the perspective of being a U.S. senator, another from a seat at the United Nations, and another from a well-funded NGO, etc. Instead of the Berkman Question Tool, we would ask the teams to add sub-pages to the wiki so that solutions could survive the day of class and remain visible as directions for potential future actionalbeit conceived quickly over the period of a seminar or the few days leading up to it.

We would also propose that the solutions be presented by the groups in elevator-pitch style and then face evaluation by classmates, professors, and guests, leading to a final discussion developing the strongest idea and exploring the challenges it implies.

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

''This section remains as a record of the ideas behind the discussion we had. It may serve as a model for the types of questions one might consider when participating in a group effort to make a recommendation to the course. We found that it was difficult to get to these particular points of discussion, and view the group method as more likely to produce thoughtful discussion among members of the seminar, who will then offer better-formed ideas to the course. Those ideas, we believe, will be more fertile ground for discussion than our single case study. Finally, as noted above, we hope future iterations would consider incorporating international issues as core parts of the session, rather than as addendum.''

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?
**Mark Lloyd of Center for American Progress advocating redundancy and wider access. [http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/ubiquity-requires-redundancy/]
**S. Derek Turner, “Down Payment on Our Digital Future,” Free Press, December 2008, available online at: [http://www.freepress.net/files/DownPayment_DigitalFuture.pdf].

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]
* (optional due to late upload) [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Bans.pdf Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008)]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

== Summary of Results ==

Following Eszter's presentation, we had a discussion about the optimal way for this administration to develop a broadband policy that was sensitive to the issues of access disparity that were discussed.

AK asked a question, referencing an experiment described in the book ''Irrational Exuberance.'' The book describes a series of tests administered with different pricing for two of chocolates. When one was offered for free, people flocked immediately to it, independent of the pricing of the other given pre-existing preferences. The proposal was that the Internet should just be made free and that only in doing so could it attract more people online.

Some discussion ensued, and the classic example of Malaria Bed nets was raised. Economists found that utilization of bednets to fight malaria actually increased when people were charged for their use, as opposed to being given them. The belief is that individuals who had to invest in the tool valued it more.

Professor Fisher raised another difficult question about a fear of path dependence. An analogy was made to the federal highway system. Once the infrastructure is in place, will we be locked-in to a system that will eventually be outdated? Is the future really in wired broadband? What about wireless?

== Final thoughts ==

As noted in the notes above, the discussion in seminar covered some interesting ground, but we feel it lacked focus and failed to lead to the useful type of conclusions we hoped for in stimulating discussion of individual solutions. The issues raised by students, professors, and guests, were of great critical value, but will be used better in a case where groups of students are presenting individual ideas on behalf of the organizations they represent.

The core function of the changed structure is to take the introductory period as an opportunity to set out some of the terms of debate in Internet inequity and inequality. Hargittai's emphasis on the Web-use divide in addition to the familiar digital divide complicated the parameters of inequality. We hope future sessions can go one step further and introduce international issues. Then, teams will produce ideas through brainstorming exercises that will be evaluated by the class. The requirement to produce a wiki page for each idea makes it possible for people who are interested in these issues in the future to build on the preliminary ideas produced by the class. No sweeping, graceful solution is likely to emerge from a simple two-hour seminar, but seeds of transformative ideas may be planted.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-05-23T23:48:15Z

G: /* Concluding Discussion/Case Study */

This page is an edited version of the session design we used in the Spring 2009 iteration of IIF. Below, we have made modifications and additions based on what we learned from the session. In addition, we suggest media and readings that might be used in future iterations. Finally, while keeping the record of the activity we used, we suggest an alternate that based on the other IIF sessions in Spring 2009 would seem to be more effective than our original plan. Graham and Mark

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

====For future iterations====
* For future iterations: Bringing Prof. Hargittai helped us lay out some of the scope of Internet use that is relevant in evaluating issues in later sessions. Thus, we believe that keeping a session like this one near the beginning of any later iteration will help put in perspective the newest phenomena in online innovation and issues.

* The following video of a presentation Prof. Hargittai made at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society may be a useful substitute for enlisting her or other researchers as guests in the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5N1hjceyc&feature=player_embedded

* We believe including some more perspective on the ideas surrounding inequity and inequality itself may be helpful. Suggestions for topics of discussion include putting the international nature of the internet in dialogue with ideas such as those of Amartya Sen in "Equality of What." We feel that in our session and perhaps in the seminar in general we were not as successful as we would have hoped in incorporating the international nature of the Internet in our discussions. This is perhaps natural in a course attended largely by U.S. law students, but the discussion of equity and equality would benefit from an increased international focus.

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

====For future iterations: an alternate activity====

This case study, that of the potential utility of U.S. government-funded efforts to increase broadband penetration in the rural United States, was an artifact of the timing of the individual session. The discussion of this particular effort, we believe, was not as illuminating as another potential activity design we encountered in other sessionsnamely, the partition of the seminar into teams who compete to create solutions to the problems of inequality.

Here, the seminar may focus both on U.S. issues and international issues through assigning groups different scopes of action. One group may be assigned to come up with solutions from the perspective of being a U.S. senator, another from a seat at the United Nations, and another from a well-funded NGO, etc. Instead of the Berkman Question Tool, we would ask the teams to add sub-pages to the wiki so that solutions could survive the day of class and remain visible as directions for potential future actionalbeit conceived quickly over the period of a seminar or the few days leading up to it.

We would also propose that the solutions be presented by the groups in elevator-pitch style and then face evaluation by classmates, professors, and guests, leading to a final discussion developing the strongest idea and exploring the challenges it implies.

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

''This section remains as a record of the ideas behind the discussion we had. It may serve as a model for the types of questions one might consider when participating in a group effort to make a recommendation to the course. We found that it was difficult to get to these particular points of discussion, and view the group method as more likely to produce thoughtful discussion among members of the seminar, who will then offer better-formed ideas to the course. Those ideas, we believe, will be more fertile ground for discussion than our single case study. Finally, as noted above, we hope future iterations would consider incorporating international issues as core parts of the session, rather than as addendum.''

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?
**Mark Lloyd of Center for American Progress advocating redundancy and wider access. [http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/ubiquity-requires-redundancy/]
**S. Derek Turner, “Down Payment on Our Digital Future,” Free Press, December 2008, available online at: [http://www.freepress.net/files/DownPayment_DigitalFuture.pdf].

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]
* (optional due to late upload) [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Bans.pdf Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008)]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

== Summary of Results ==

Following Eszter's presentation, we had a discussion about the optimal way for this administration to develop a broadband policy that was sensitive to the issues of access disparity that were discussed.

AK asked a question, referencing an experiment described in the book ''Irrational Exuberance.'' The book describes a series of tests administered with different pricing for two of chocolates. When one was offered for free, people flocked immediately to it, independent of the pricing of the other given pre-existing preferences. The proposal was that the Internet should just be made free and that only in doing so could it attract more people online.

Some discussion ensued, and the classic example of Malaria Bed nets was raised. Economists found that utilization of bednets to fight malaria actually increased when people were charged for their use, as opposed to being given them. The belief is that individuals who had to invest in the tool valued it more.

Professor Fisher raised another difficult question about a fear of path dependence. An analogy was made to the federal highway system. Once the infrastructure is in place, will we be locked-in to a system that will eventually be outdated? Is the future really in wired broadband? What about wireless?

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-05-23T23:44:20Z

G: /* Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) */

This page is an edited version of the session design we used in the Spring 2009 iteration of IIF. Below, we have made modifications and additions based on what we learned from the session. In addition, we suggest media and readings that might be used in future iterations. Finally, while keeping the record of the activity we used, we suggest an alternate that based on the other IIF sessions in Spring 2009 would seem to be more effective than our original plan. Graham and Mark

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

====For future iterations====
* For future iterations: Bringing Prof. Hargittai helped us lay out some of the scope of Internet use that is relevant in evaluating issues in later sessions. Thus, we believe that keeping a session like this one near the beginning of any later iteration will help put in perspective the newest phenomena in online innovation and issues.

* The following video of a presentation Prof. Hargittai made at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society may be a useful substitute for enlisting her or other researchers as guests in the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5N1hjceyc&feature=player_embedded

* We believe including some more perspective on the ideas surrounding inequity and inequality itself may be helpful. Suggestions for topics of discussion include putting the international nature of the internet in dialogue with ideas such as those of Amartya Sen in "Equality of What." We feel that in our session and perhaps in the seminar in general we were not as successful as we would have hoped in incorporating the international nature of the Internet in our discussions. This is perhaps natural in a course attended largely by U.S. law students, but the discussion of equity and equality would benefit from an increased international focus.

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

====For future iterations: an alternate activity====

This case study, that of the potential utility of U.S. government-funded efforts to increase broadband penetration in the rural United States, was an artifact of the timing of the individual session. The discussion of this particular effort, we believe, was not as illuminating as another potential activity design we encountered in other sessionsnamely, the partition of the seminar into teams who compete to create solutions to the problems of inequality.

Here, the seminar may focus both on U.S. issues and international issues through assigning groups different scopes of action. One group may be assigned to come up with solutions from the perspective of being a U.S. senator, another from a seat at the United Nations, and another from a well-funded NGO, etc. Instead of the Berkman Question Tool, we would ask the teams to add sub-pages to the wiki so that solutions could survive the day of class and remain visible as directions for potential future actionalbeit conceived quickly over the period of a seminar or the few days leading up to it.

We would also propose that the solutions be presented by the groups in elevator-pitch style and then face evaluation by classmates, professors, and guests, leading to a final discussion developing the strongest idea and exploring the challenges it implies.

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?
**Mark Lloyd of Center for American Progress advocating redundancy and wider access. [http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/ubiquity-requires-redundancy/]
**S. Derek Turner, “Down Payment on Our Digital Future,” Free Press, December 2008, available online at: [http://www.freepress.net/files/DownPayment_DigitalFuture.pdf].

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]
* (optional due to late upload) [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Bans.pdf Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008)]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

== Summary of Results ==

Following Eszter's presentation, we had a discussion about the optimal way for this administration to develop a broadband policy that was sensitive to the issues of access disparity that were discussed.

AK asked a question, referencing an experiment described in the book ''Irrational Exuberance.'' The book describes a series of tests administered with different pricing for two of chocolates. When one was offered for free, people flocked immediately to it, independent of the pricing of the other given pre-existing preferences. The proposal was that the Internet should just be made free and that only in doing so could it attract more people online.

Some discussion ensued, and the classic example of Malaria Bed nets was raised. Economists found that utilization of bednets to fight malaria actually increased when people were charged for their use, as opposed to being given them. The belief is that individuals who had to invest in the tool valued it more.

Professor Fisher raised another difficult question about a fear of path dependence. An analogy was made to the federal highway system. Once the infrastructure is in place, will we be locked-in to a system that will eventually be outdated? Is the future really in wired broadband? What about wireless?

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-05-23T23:35:29Z

G: /* Introduction (approx. 45 min) */

This page is an edited version of the session design we used in the Spring 2009 iteration of IIF. Below, we have made modifications and additions based on what we learned from the session. In addition, we suggest media and readings that might be used in future iterations. Finally, while keeping the record of the activity we used, we suggest an alternate that based on the other IIF sessions in Spring 2009 would seem to be more effective than our original plan. Graham and Mark

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

====For future iterations====
* For future iterations: Bringing Prof. Hargittai helped us lay out some of the scope of Internet use that is relevant in evaluating issues in later sessions. Thus, we believe that keeping a session like this one near the beginning of any later iteration will help put in perspective the newest phenomena in online innovation and issues.

* The following video of a presentation Prof. Hargittai made at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society may be a useful substitute for enlisting her or other researchers as guests in the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5N1hjceyc&feature=player_embedded

* We believe including some more perspective on the ideas surrounding inequity and inequality itself may be helpful. Suggestions for topics of discussion include putting the international nature of the internet in dialogue with ideas such as those of Amartya Sen in "Equality of What." We feel that in our session and perhaps in the seminar in general we were not as successful as we would have hoped in incorporating the international nature of the Internet in our discussions. This is perhaps natural in a course attended largely by U.S. law students, but the discussion of equity and equality would benefit from an increased international focus.

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?
**Mark Lloyd of Center for American Progress advocating redundancy and wider access. [http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/ubiquity-requires-redundancy/]
**S. Derek Turner, “Down Payment on Our Digital Future,” Free Press, December 2008, available online at: [http://www.freepress.net/files/DownPayment_DigitalFuture.pdf].

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]
* (optional due to late upload) [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Bans.pdf Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008)]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

== Summary of Results ==

Following Eszter's presentation, we had a discussion about the optimal way for this administration to develop a broadband policy that was sensitive to the issues of access disparity that were discussed.

AK asked a question, referencing an experiment described in the book ''Irrational Exuberance.'' The book describes a series of tests administered with different pricing for two of chocolates. When one was offered for free, people flocked immediately to it, independent of the pricing of the other given pre-existing preferences. The proposal was that the Internet should just be made free and that only in doing so could it attract more people online.

Some discussion ensued, and the classic example of Malaria Bed nets was raised. Economists found that utilization of bednets to fight malaria actually increased when people were charged for their use, as opposed to being given them. The belief is that individuals who had to invest in the tool valued it more.

Professor Fisher raised another difficult question about a fear of path dependence. An analogy was made to the federal highway system. Once the infrastructure is in place, will we be locked-in to a system that will eventually be outdated? Is the future really in wired broadband? What about wireless?

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-05-23T23:22:55Z

The Future of News

2009-03-09T20:00:36Z

G: /* Background and Discussion */

'''Topic owners:''' ''Dharmishta Rood, Jon Fildes''

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

==Summary==

The traditional media industry is in turmoil. Circulation of newspapers is [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/business/media/28circ.html?_r=1 falling]. Some, such as the Tribune group, are saddled with huge debts and have filed for [http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-081208tribune-bankruptcy,0,3718621.story bankruptcy]. Staff are being laid off, costs are being cut and foreign bureaus are being shut. Audiences are fragmenting, advertising spending is plummeting and the valuations of companies are [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21times.html?ref=business dropping]. TV and radio are experiencing similar problems. Some [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30dowd.html?hp organisations], such as [http://www.pasadenanow.com/ Pasadena Now], have even begun outsourcing local news reporting to India.

Most of these changes have been blamed on the arrival of the web, which has changed how information is produced and consumed. Now, anyone can be a news gatherer, publisher and distributor. The balance of power has changed.
Yet at the same time there is a paradox; the web offers organisations a huge opportunity to reach out to audiences and connect with them in new ways.

This class will seek to explore at least two of the challenges currently facing the media industry:

* What will the business model of the future look like? As Richard Sambrook , Director of the BBC's Global News division, [http://sambrook.typepad.com/sacredfacts/2008/11/future-of-news.html says]: “Newspapers and broadcasters have lived for decades by selling audiences to advertisers. Now the number of eyeballs per page or per programme is falling - but we have much greater detail and granularity about where they are going and what they are doing online. Media organisations have to find a way to extract the commercial value from that”. Already, groups such as [http://spot.us/ spot.us] and [http://www.propublica.org/ Pro Publica] are experimenting with new business models, such as community-funded reporters and grant funded newsrooms. Others, such as the Christian Science Monitor, [http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1029/p25s01-usgn.html have ditched] the old way of doing things and have gone entirely online. Others, such as the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press, seem to be following a [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/18/2450624.htm similar strategy] by cutting back on home deliveries. Will these work? Are these the right approach?

* What will the newspapers or media outlets of the future look like? The New York Times is using its website in [http://vizlab.nytimes.com/ new and innovative] ways. Others [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-wiki-splash,0,1349109.htmlstory experiments], such as the LA Times wiki editorials, have been less successful. So, how should papers engage with their audience? Is news reporting now a collaborative process? How should they respond to citizen journalism? Are they competing or should they - and can they - work together?

This class will explore some of the issues facing the future of the news industry. Could they disappear? Does it matter if they do? What values are at stake beyond what the markets appear to be able to sustain? Should governments intervene to save them in the same way as they have decided to prop up the ailing car manufacturing industry? Is this an appropriate intervention? Should it be left to market forces? Ultimately, what is the future for “old media”?

==Question of the week==

What values are at stake in the newspaper industry and what could - or should - be done to maintain them?

==Contributors==

We are aiming for two guests: [http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/15/business/fi-timesbiobox15 Russ Stanton], editor at the LA Times, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Jarvis Jeff Jarvis], associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York and author of [http://www.amazon.com/What-Would-Google-Jeff-Jarvis/dp/0061709719 What Would Google Do?].

==Background and Discussion==

Readings:
* [http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=428819dc-f4bf-4db3-a6e8-1b601c8fe273 Write Now]. Mark Pinsky of the New Republic on why Barack Obama should resurrect the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Writers%27_Project Federal Writers Project] and bail out laid-off journalists.
* [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/new-york-times End Times]. Michael Hirschorn of the Atlantic asks whether the New York Times can survive the death of newsprint?
**(optional: [http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13765 NYT response])
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/business/media/12carr.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss David Carr of the NYT] on why newspapers need an iTunes moment. Jemima Kiss of the Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/jan/16/newspaperformats-newspapers disagrees].
**(optional: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28swensen.html?_r=1 news philanthropy] and [http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_problem_with_non_profit_journalism/C559/L559/ oppositional views to it])
**(optional: [http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a4e2aafc-cc92-4e79-90d1-db3946a6d119 Goodbye to the Age of Newspapers] (Hello to a New Era of Corruption) by Paul Starr in the New Republic.

Background information:
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/11/no-freaks/ A short introduction to the newspaper crisis on the Daily Show]
* [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-times31-2009jan31,0,2110794.story LA Times to lay off 300]
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/20/can-the-la-times-turn-off-its-presses/ Jeff Jarvis] on whether the LA Times should switch off its printing presses, and a [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/22/la-times-followup/ follow up]
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/02/09/can-journalism-go-with-the-flow/ Can Journalism go with the flow?] by Jeff Jarvis
* The [http://www.ap.org/newmodel.pdf AP report (PDF)] mentioned in Overload!
* Boing Boing post by Clay Shirky: [http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/08/the-newspaper-indust.html The Newspaper Industry and the Arrival of the Glaciers]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 Newspapers outsource newsgathering]
* [http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/dec/09/business/chi-081208tribune-bankruptcy Tribune Co. Bankruptcy]
* A view from the other side: a newspaper journalist [http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20081211_Beyond_the_Spin__Rethinking_journalism_spiel.html ignores the potential of the web]
* Columbia Journalism Review article: [http://www.cjr.org/feature/overload_1.php Overload!]- Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information
*[http://247wallst.com/2009/02/23/the-twenty-five-most-valuable-blogs/ blogs, pageviews and worth]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/timesextra/ Times Extra!] and some [http://www.mondaynote.com/2008/12/07/light-at-the-end-of-the-pure-player-tunnel-it%E2%80%99s-not-a-locomotive/ thoughts about it and other things]
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/01/02/bad-news-good-news/ Bad news, good news]: the industry in numbers
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/news-and-information-digital-media-come-age Citizen Media Law Project]
*[http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/12/twitter-gold-mine.html An ad-model based off of twitter?] How could this be applied to news?
* [http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/12/updating-the-pulitzer-prizes.html Online Pulitzers anyone?]
* For those of you who have never read online news: [http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/10-things-every-newspaper-and-magazine-website-must-do/ 10 things every newspaper and magazine website must do]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/nov/17/googlethemedia-advertising Why Google defines the new digital economy] by Jeff Jarvis

Relevant Projects:
*[http://www.spot.us/ Spot.us]
*[http://www.everyblock.com/ Everyblock]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/timesextra/ NYTimes Extra]
*[http://www.nowpublic.com Now Public]
*[http://english.ohmynews.com/ Oh My News]
*[http://www.groundreport.com/ Ground Report]
*[http://www.propublica.org/ Pro Publica]
*[http://www.typepad.com/blogging/bailout.html TypePad for Journalists]

Recent news news that may be of interest to your group: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/2211220&from=rss [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And another, which you've probably already seen: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877191,00.html [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 12:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

==Technology==

Each class member will need to register for a [http://seesmic.com/ Seesmic] account. Seesmic is a video blogging application which has been called the "Twitter of video". It allows threaded video discussions. You can watch a video explainer [http://seesmic.com/video/UWFBfW1mfF here]

We would ideally like the class to be webcast and would encourage people to use twitter, blogs etc before, during and after the session.

==Task==

Clearly, this is a huge area and we are not going to be able to discuss every issues facing the newspaper industy. Instead, we will look to the future. We would also like the discussion to start before the class and continue after it finishes.

Hence, we would like each group to use a webcam or mobile phone to record an elevator pitch to be posted to [http://seesmic.com/ Seesmic] before the day of the class. The pitch should describe a new business model, working practice or technology that the group thinks newspapers should adopt. Alternatively, groups can pitch a policy proposal directed at the newspaper industry. We'd also like you to explain what effect your idea would have. We have listed some relevant projects above as inspiration.

Each pitch should be short - around 2-3 minutes - and will be played out and discussed in class in the broader context of the "question of the week" above. We will aim to get our guest speakers to record their own thoughts as well.

We have started the video thread [http://seesmic.com/videos/bInSML7Ie3 here]. Groups can post their pitch as a reply. If you're idea overlaps with an already posted video, reply to that video building on the idea. Be as inventive as you like with both the idea and the video. Replies can either be recorded "live" or prerecorded and then uploaded. Please post your reply before midnight on Sunday 08 March, to give us and the contributors time to look though them before class. Remember, your video can be accessed and replied to by anyone with a Seesmic account.

We will also be sending around a short survey before the class to get a sense of people's news consumption.

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

2009-03-02T20:58:56Z

G: /* Tools and Examples */ add Tor

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mel]]''' - it's worth noting that we have a KSG student, an MBA student, and an engineer in our group, and no lawyers or law students, so expect this session to come from a slightly different perspective.

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

== Before class ==

To prepare before class, please do the following.

# Read the [[#Precis]], which will introduce you to the main topics of the session.
# Read and consider the [[#Core questions]] we will be discussing during the session.
# Read and complete the [[#Workshop prep]] exercise. This should take you no more than 20 minutes.
# Read the [[#Mandatory]] readings; there are 4 total; 2 are short, and 1 can be skimmed.

== Precis ==

Activism is "intentional action to bring about social or political change" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism]). In this sense, activist have used the web for mobilizing people for all kinds of social causes, ranging from the tremendous success of the Obama campaign's online efforts to post-election citizen journalism and [http://www.netsquared.org/2008/conference/projects/ushahidi crisis mapping mash-ups] in Kenya to your basic online petition or full-scale and often illegal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism hacktivist] activities. New tools are emerging for coordinating concrete action and volunteering ([http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank], [http://www.thepoint.org The Point], [http://www.zoosa.org Zoosa]) as well as fundraising and matching donors and social entrepreneurs ([http://apps.facebook.com/causes/about Facebook Causes], [http://www.donorschoose.org DonorsChoose], [http://www.socialvibe.com Socialvibe]), and other tools not explicitly designed for social action in particular ([http://www.twitter.com Twitter], collaborative document editing, IMs and text messages) are being pressed into service by tech-savvy grassroots organizers, sometimes to great effect.

While online tools are being used by activists whose causes and organizations may have had long histories pre-internet, we also must consider internet activism in terms of new fields of action taken around issues of new issues of concern that the internet has given rise to -- see, for instance, Grey Tuesday, a day of coordinated electronic civil disobedience to distribute DJ Dangermouse's mashup, "Grey Album," or Berkman's own OpenNet Initiative which monitors and reports on internet filtering and surveillance practices by governments around the world.

Sandor Vegh, in his chapter of ''Cyberactivism'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayershas [http://books.google.com/books?id=KHCjMkNRAkYC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Classifying+Forms+of+Online+Activism:+The+Case+of+Cyberprotests+Against+the+World+Bank&source=bl&ots=NtXY2ND1Ma&sig=XnCYz7850aSl2nJZNmQ4NTIeRak&hl=en&ei=1C-eSdmNLZaitgff2bWGDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result suggests three categories] of "Cyberacticism":

{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
|-valign="top"
! Category || Uses || Examples || Tools
|-
| awareness/advocacy || Blogging, petitions || [http://www.peta.org PETA], [http://w2.eff.org/br/ Blue Ribbon Campaign] || Websites, mass mailings, podcasts, RSS
|-
| organization/mobilization || Campaigning, fundraising, volunteering, community building || [http://www.moveon.org Moveon], [http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/08/05/CU2005080501141.html?whichDay=1 Al Qaeda], Myanmar uprising || Websites, mass mailings, mobile applications, online/offline hybrids
|-
| direct online action/reaction || Electronic civil disobedience, hacktivism || [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_during_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war Cyberattacks during the 2008 South Ossetia war] || DDoS, website vandalizing, trojans, mass mailings
|}

While these categories may offer a useful initial framework, many activists leverage all of these categories of activism in their work.

== Core questions ==

Needless to say, there are any of a number of ways to tackle a topic of this breadth but here are just a few structural and tactical questions to consider while doing the readings for class:

1. An issue of tactics: What are the success factors of online activism tools? (And how much of the success of any given campaign can be attributed to the internet tools used as opposed to a superior ground operation or a more compelling issue/candidate?) Is there a generalizable model here? What are the parallels and differences with the way for-profit firms have tried to harness these tools? Further, as Ethan Zuckerman notes, "any sufficiently advanced read/write technology will get used for two purposes: pornography and activism. Porn is a weak test for the success of participatory media - it’s like tapping a mike and asking, “Is it on?” If you’re not getting porn in your system, it doesn’t work. Activism is a stronger test - if activists are using your tools, it’s a pretty good indication that your tools are useful and usable." What online technologies have yet to be fully exploited by activists and why?

2. How do we define and measure success of online activism? Do online tools for activists allow for one to feel simply satisfied with a lazier, shallow degree of involvement (the median earned by many Facebook causes prominently displayed on so many users' pages is under $50) or does it create new ladders of engagement? What is the meaning of your number of viewers, of addresses on your mailing list, or of Facebook friends for your cause? What is the fundamental difference between a computer mediated act of civil disobedience versus one offline?

3. Compared to traditional modes of activist engagement, digital tools change both the meaning and tactics of democratic participation. Still, we have to examine, who is in now and who is out now? Who has access and who still may not have it? How do old digital divides play out or new ones emerge? To what extent do these tools allow us to subvert hierarchies of power or to what extent do they create new hierarchies and gatekeepers? (i.e. Who participated by submitting questions to the YouTube Presidential debates in 2008? Given certain barriers to access, what voices or issues might not have been heard?)

4. Online activism often creates decentralized organizations, which act and react very differently than the centralized organizations most of us are used to, so both leveraging and counteracting distributed activist communities can be counterintuitive. What things can decentralized online movements do more easily than centralized (online or offline) ones, and what strategies might activists and/or their opponents do to take advantage of these tendencies to either promote or counteract a cause?

== Contributors ==

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/ Ethan Zuckerman], Berkman Center Fellow, Co-Founder of [http://www.globalvoicesonline.org GlobalVoicesOnline.org], providing both practical and theoretical expertise with focus on applications in the developing world.
* [http://www.nicco.org Nicco Mele], IOP Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, founder of [http://www.echoditto.com/ EchoDitto], former Internet Operations Director of Gov. Dean's presidential primary campaign in 2003

== Session design ==

=== Workshop prep ===

''To be done before class.''

During class, we will be splitting into 6 randomly assigned teams for a rocket pitch workshop session. Teams will be competing to create and pitch ideas for internet-based projects for various hypothetical clients, played (and judged) by the session team (Mel, Rainer, and Elana), the course professors, and our guests.

'''Assignment:''' Examine online tools (software programs and platforms) that have been or could be used for online activism. Come to class with a list of 5 tools or interesting causes/campaigns that you examined - at least one of them should be something new you've added to the list at [[#Tools]]. Each entry on the list should contain the following parts:

* Name of tool - http://link-to-the-tool-if-possible.com - 1-2 sentence description of what types of projects/demographics/causes this tool would be particularly suited to AND/OR a link to an example of this tool being used for a specific activism project.

'''Requirements:''' The [[#Tools]] section below has some ideas for starters, but you must add at least one new item to the list as part of your 5 items. Tools must be internet-based in some way, but do not necessarily need to be limited to personal computers; cellphone/SMS apps, location-based tags and artifacts that somehow link or point to online spaces, etc. are also valid. Custom-developed applications that were developed and deployed for a specific project are ok, even if they cannot be reused for future projects - they're great examples.

Non-mandatory but probably helpful: you can read about the [[#Workshop]] format for the exact times and materials you'll have available, as well as the [[#Judging]] criteria.

=== Activity intro (10 minutes) ===

We will first explain the ground rules of the rocket pitch workshop which will be held later in the session and introduce the 3 scenarios involved.

=== Guests present case studies (30 minutes) ===

Next, our guests will give short case study examples of projects they've worked on and tactics they've used. During this part of the session, students are encouraged to write down (on pieces of paper) questions they'd like to bring up, and to save those papers for the discussion after the workshop.

=== Workshop ===

''(50 minutes)''

You will be divided into 6 teams. Teams will roleplay the parts of teams assigned to create internet-based projects for various activism scenarios. Teams will compete to create the best 1-minute rocket pitch of their project idea. The 1-minute timing will be strict; we'll cut you off at 60 seconds.

* You get 30 seconds to set up and 1 minute to present.
* Each group gets 3 big sheets of paper ("slides") and a marker for each round. You do not have to use the paper. However, projector setup will count against your time...
* Groups can use any resources (including computers) and work anywhere they want.
* Your presentation can be and use any things or people you want.

* 20 minutes: First scenario prep
* 10 minutes: First scenario presentations and [[#Judging]]
* 10 minutes: Second scenario prep
* 10 minutes: Second scenario presentations and [[#Judging]]

=== Judging ===

''Judging is interspersed with the [[#Workshop]].''

Presentations will be judged on the following criteria, evenly weighted.

''Criteria are still subject to change, and final judging criteria will be announced at the beginning of the session, but this is the current draft.''

* '''Tactics:''' Is your strategy well-articulated? Can we envison how you will carry out your game plan, and do we believe it's probable that you will reach your goals with the resources and timeframe you've been allotted?
* '''Measurement:''' What is your goal? Have you defined what it would mean for your project to be successful, and how you will measure and determine your success?
* '''Analysis of competition:''' Did you articulate why your approach is better than others that might exist?
* '''Utilization of the Internet:''' Are you taking full advantage of the online medium? (Why would your project be more difficult/impossible offline?)
* '''Leveraging your audience:''' Did you articulate who you are trying to engage, and in what manner? Will your community be (or be working against one that is) centralized, decentralized, or hybrid - and why? If you are trying to build a community, how will you most effectively leverage the type of community you have chosen to build? If you are not trying to build a community, why not?
* '''Creativity:''' Are you using tools or processes in an unique way that nobody has tried before? Are you advocating a cause or reaching an audience not commonly addressed through this medium? Are you in some way doing something crazy and new?

Note that we are ''not'' judging you on how well you pitch the ''cause,'' only the project. The judges are assuming the roles of supporters of the cause who want to fund your project, so you can safely assume that the judges (1) know all about your cause and (2) are already completely convinced that it is the best thing in the world.

=== Discussion (30 minutes)===

Students are now encouraged to bring out the questions they had earlier; we'll use these as the basis for a followup discussion.

== Readings ==

=== Mandatory ===

* [http://www.articlearchives.com/law-legal-system/constitutional-law-freedom-press/1832458-1.html''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,''] by the law professor Seth Kreimer.
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/03/08/the-cute-cat-theory-talk-at-etech/ Ethan Zuckerman's Cute Cat Theory of Digital Activism] (This is available in .mp3 format for free in podcast section of the iTunes store --CKennedy)
* [http://publius.cc/2008/12/09/from-the-bottom-up-using-the-internet-to-mobilize-campaign-participation From the Bottom-Up: Using the Internet to Mobilize Campaign Participation] by Dana Fisher, a short article that compares the strategies of Obama and McCain's online campaigns. (skim)
* Summaries and selections from ''The Starfish and the Spider'' by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, focused on pages 133-158 on "taking on decentralization," which argues that conventional attack tactics fail against decentralized activism, and presents several strategies that can be used instead. Read the [http://magazine.redhat.com/2007/02/05/book-review-the-starfish-and-the-spider/ Red Hat Magazine review] by Jeff Mackanic and Greg DeKoenigsberg, which summarizes the main points, then see the [[Crib notes]] from p. 133-158 on attacking decentralization. (The entire book is worth reading as a framework for understanding decentralized movements.)
* [http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html "Power Laws, Web Logs and Inequality"] by Clay Shirky

=== Optional ===

* ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. (This book is difficult to get hold of, but good supplementary reading if you're interested and can procure a copy.)
* [http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/ Rebooting America: Ideas for Redesigning American Democracy for the Internet Age]
* http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/12/10/open-for-questions-participation-from-campaigning-to-governing/
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-exley/the-new-organizers-part-1_b_132782.html The New Organizers: What's Really Behind Obama's Ground Game] from HuffPo.com
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25bloggers-t.html?fta=y "Revolution Facebook Style: Can social networking turn young Egyptians into a force for Democratic Change?"] from the New York Times
*[http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12815678 "Rioters of the World Unite: They have nothing to lose but their web cameras"] from the Economist. See Patrick Meier's critique of the piece [http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/snap-mobs-of-the-world-unite-a-better-taxonomy/ here.]
* [http://mobileactive.org/wireless-technology-social-change-11-case-studies "Wireless Technology for Social Change: Trends in NGO Mobile Use"]

== Tools and Examples ==

* [http://www.freeople.com/ Freeople]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) Anonymous]
* [http://www.digiactive.org/wp-content/uploads/digiactive_facebook_activism.pdf DigiActive Introduction to Facebook Activism]
* [http://apps.facebook.com/causes/about Facebook Causes]
* [http://www.netsquared.org/2008/conference/projects/ushahidi Crisis mapping mash-ups in Kenya]
* [http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank]
* [http://www.zoosa.org Zoosa]
* [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ Global Voices]
* [http://www.donorschoose.org DonorsChoose]
* [http://www.socialvibe.com Socialvibe]
* [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]
* [http://www.frontlinesms.com/ Frontline SMS]
* [http://discoverscholars.org/ DiscoverScholars]
* [http://www.socialvibe.com/ SocialVibe]
* [http://www.techsoup.org/index.cfm TechSoup]
* [http://mobileactive.org/ MobileActive]
* [http://theuptake.org/ TheUpTake], a citizen journalism site whose efforts are summarized [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UpTake here]. An example of their success in promoting political awareness is the coleman / franken recount and trials. [http://uptake-editorial.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/1694/ link]. (This is where we are supposed to put our one new entry before class right?)
* [http://freeconnie.com/ Free Connie]. A friend of mine from college, now at USC law, is defending a woman who suffered from BWS and has served her time in jail. With the help of another one of our friends, he put together this site for public activism on her case.
* [http://ipetitions.com/ iPetitions]
* [http://capitoladvantage.com/ Capitol Advantage] Leading provider of Internet tools for congressional communication and civic participation.
* [http://www2.democracyinaction.org/ DemocracyInAction] is a non-profit that provides a suite of tools for progressive organizations, including fundraising, communications, and contact management.
* [http://carrotmob.org/about/ Carrotmob]is the opposite of a boycott. Businesses compete with one another to see who can do the most good (locally sourced produce, green energy etc) and carrotmob organises a huge group of people to descend on the business and buy products "in order to reward whichever business made the strongest commitment to improve the world".
* [http://www.spot.us/ Spot.us] - community-funded journalism site, where freelance reporters publish proposals for local-interest stories that they want to write, and users contribute money to the proposals that interest them until there's enough for the story to be written.
* [http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html] - The New Zealand Internet Blackout
** ...based (I suspect) on the [http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9602/cyber_censors/index.html American blackout] to protest the Communications Decency Act back in '96.
* All the "For every ''x'' people who join, I'll donate $''y'' to ''z''" groups on Facebook
* [http://stealth.strangecompany.org/ "Stealth,"] a piece of machinima created with the WoW engine - this was created to help visualize a fairly abstract proposal to screw up copyrightÂ law in Britain, and at the same time mobilize a demographic that's (at least stereotypically) apathetic about politics.
* [http://www.rflofsl.org/ Relay for Life of Second Life] - 'nuff said
* [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/ Care2 petitionsite] - create a petition, have people sign it, then send it off (what else would you do with a petition, after all?)
* [http://www.theextraordinaries.org/ The Extraordinaries] - An attempt to create a mobile platform for crowd-sourced volunteerism.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHHX9R4Qtk The Great Schlep] - video attempt to mobilize Northeastern hipsters to convince their grandparents to vote for Obama
* [http://speakout.com/takeaction/ SpeakOut.com Action Tools] - Allows users to create petitions, search for and sign petitions, complete surveys, and debate issues. Also provides tools to help users make informed decisions on political issues.
* [http://myfairelection.com MyFairElection.com] - site where voters can report problems at their polls in real time, mapped by district, so that you can tell where problems are occurring during an election even if there isn't some horrible disaster that gets lots of national news attention
* [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] Microblogging site that some are using for social activism. [http://jaxinteractive.com/2008/05/19/twitter-charity-activism-and-the-social-web/]
* [http://www.giyus.org/ Megaphone Desktop Tool] - Developed by Give Israel Your United Support and discussed in [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article693911.ece this London Times article]. It delivers real-time alerts and enables automated voting to help users show their support for pro-Israel articles, videos, blogs, etc.
* [http://www.change.org Change.org] A social action network where you can: 1. learn about causes, 2. connect to good people & nonprofits, and 3. take action.
* [http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org World Volunteer Web] Supports the volunteer community by serving as a global clearinghouse for information and resources linked to volunteerism that can be used for campaigning, advocacy, and networking.
* http://www.digiactive.org/2008/03/10/tactic-digital-activism-without-the-internet-in-cuba/ (Using flash drives to distribute information in a controlled manner) -CKennedy
* [http://www.smartmobs.com/ Smart Mobs], less a tool than a strategy for protest and just-in-time organization which is enabled by the proliferation of digital devices. Used successfully as a means of political protest in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_mob certain foreign countries]. Occasionally confused with flash mobs, but not identical.
* Again, more strategy than tool: activists use specialized blogs (like [http://www.marijuana.com/legalization-decriminalization/112609-third-chance-citizens-briefing-book.html this one on marijuana legalization]) to redirect their user base toward participatory governance websites such as the [http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ Citizen's Briefing Book]. In turn, their issues gain additional salience with policymakers.
* [http://tipjoy.com/ Tipjoy] - An online payment system specifically designed for micropayments or "tips." Tipjoy makes it easier and cheaper for individuals to make micropayments or donations (1-click payments; payment aggregation), and works with other platforms (e.g. Twitter).
* Generic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list mailing lists] - Easy way to quickly reach many people who often signed up because of a common interest.
* Tor [http://torproject.org] is a tool that works to anonymize one's Internet activities by encrypting transmissions and routing them through a series of volunteer nodes before completing a transmission. It is one way to hide one's identity while posting material for reasons such as leaks, or to avoid scrutiny from government authorities. It also circumvents many forms of content filtering.

User talk:JF

2009-02-25T15:26:30Z

G: New page: Here's an interesting overview by a sociologist... http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=a4e2aafc-cc92-4e79-90d1-db3946a6d119 --~~~~

Here's an interesting overview by a sociologist... http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=a4e2aafc-cc92-4e79-90d1-db3946a6d119 --[[User:G|G]] 15:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-16T16:19:17Z

G: /* Stuff We've had before */

== feb 2 feedback ==

* would like a concrete example
* what is inequity? by what criteria would we define it?

== Stuff We've had before ==

=== Title ===

I'll suggest: ''The Internet and the Offline World?'' Is this uncomfortably dichotomizing? I think it can nicely incorporate both social inequity and environmental impacts of online actions. --[[User:G|G]] 02:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if I like that title as it implies a sharp dichotomy between the two. When we speak of the Internet, although we rarely do so precisely, we often think of a reified location, a sort of Internet-as-place. Specifically we often think of it as "cyberspace" -- in many ways not of this world or at least not bound by many of the constraints of this world. I'm hesitant to continue that distinction. Some of the more recent literature on these issues focuses on how we've imported much of our prejudices and constraints into the social fabric of the Internet and that there isn't as sharp a divide as we thought. Turns out Second Life is even more racist and sexist than this one. These are topics I think would be interesting and playing off the tension between the Internet and the Offline World could be fun; let's not assume a conclusion here.

:Anyway, that's a long way to say that I'd prefer the title "The Internet and Inequity." I think the word societal is misleading if we're going to include OLPC and some of the digital divide issues, as well as environmental concerns. The social aspects often include issues of gender, sexual identity, ageism, race, and education, which might be more interesting to focus on, but subsuming the environmental and developmental elements under the aegis seems overly broad to me. Anytime you bring up the word inequity, you instantly become the "cold stream" of the curriculum, but it might be worth embracing. It might be nice to have a break from technophilia. --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 06:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Reading ===
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html Mattathias Schwartz, Malwebolence - The World of Web Trolling]

=== Precis ===

Many of the frontiers of the internet are located at the present upper limit of innovation or social development, but the most vivid frontier is the border between online and offline. This session is designed to complicate that division and explore solutions to some of the problems it presents. After years of discussion of a "digital divide" between people with and without internet access, some social scientists have turned their attention to the differences in ways people use the internet. Are people logging on to take full advantage of the latest collaborative media and an empowering access to information? Are they logging on to shop and chat, but not seeing the same benefits as early adopters? Relatedly, how do the internet and its social configurations affect people who do not log on? Does increased connectedness among people who are online isolate those who aren't from opportunity?

A second important way in which rapid growth of internet infrastructure affects the offline world is that, indeed, the internet has a physical infrastructure. From individual terminals to fiber-optic lines and data centers, the physical footprint in mineral and energy consumption is enormous. Moreover, the conditions of disassembly and recycle of retired machinery are usually not ideal. Indeed, recent media reports have explored the intensity of environmental and human impact in "illegal" but thriving e-waste processing towns in China and elsewhere. The human impact, in the form of noxious inhalation and contaminated food and water supplies, is unsurprisingly felt by people who already have few socioeconomic opportunities.

In this session, we set out to address how online society can reduce its own negative impact, or even work toward positive effects specifically targeted at the externalities of a thriving online space.

=== Concrete question(s) of the week ===

* How can online society incentivize responsible offline behavior?
* What might a "responsible surfing" campaign look like, and what would be its metrics?
* Can computers and other network components be built for safer disassembly and easier recycling?
* Is the Internet a place where all are welcome, where all have equal access, where all can participate equally? If not why not and how so?
* How does the Internet affect the distribution of social and cultural power?

=== Preliminary Framing ===

==== Socio-technical Gap ====

Problems encountered in the act of discoursing itself are sometimes addressed via social means, technological means, or both. It has been suggested that technological tools should support social processes, but there is an adaptation of each realm to the other - how does this back-and-forth take place in the design of a successful technology-enabled discussion?

Which inequalities are created or strengthened due the increasing reliance on technology and the differences in the ability to access the Internet(e.g. global and socio-economic differences)? Does the net actually re-distribute and decentralize power and influence, or does it also reinforce the existing political and economic hierarchies? In short - is the Internet really a good thing for everybody?

==== One Laptop Per Child ====

Happy to help this group with info as I can. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]]

==== Environmental Concerns ====

To what extent is the hardware upon which the Internet exists damaging the environment? Where does old tech go when it dies? What distributive impact does the "recycling" of old tech have. Was the Internet build with principles of physical sustainbility in mind? Is it too late to change? How do individual companies, like Google, view their own practices? Does the cost of a server internalize the cost of disposal? Why has it been cheaper to just keep throwing on new machines? What of the electricity necessary to run these machines? What does it say about society that we are so willing to pollute our own communities to create a second life? Has technological innovation and advancement dislocated the true impact of non-zero cost transactions? --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 19:36, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps a way to innovate on these questions would be a system for tracking these offline effects of online behavior. Track hardware? A certification scheme? A carbon footprint clock for ''online'' activities? --[[User:G|G]] 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Very good topic. I'd recommend focusing on the first half, which is rich enough to fill a whole session and associated readings and mindshare, rather than dividing between the latest on digital divide stuff and the environmental stuff. Eszter would be a natural guest for this, and I think it would be great to push her to policy proposals -- something social scientists usually shy away from. What would she want gov't or others to do to address the more subtle inequalities she wants to highlight? Whenever various people call for "more education" as a solution, as a practical matter, is that a solution at all? (Are there examples of "more education" working, when deployed in a self-conscious way? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that Eszter would be one of the best possible people for this topic. We could also consider bringing in more social scientists like Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, but I think that might get redundant. The Envronmental concerns and the development concerns are separatable, but I might want to reconceive the first half into two components. The first would be: how do different people use the Internet if different ways and how does this disparate usage and access affect their Internet experience. The second would be: how does the Internet deepen and further pre-existing inequity in society, create new problems, or address old problems? These issues are related but not identical. We could explore how a culture of lulz means that young men in the suburbs are more likely to feel comfortable on pseudoanonymous bulliten boards and in turn how that might lead to a deepening of the gender gap when they turn their anger on classmates. We could talk about the use of social networking among people with non-traditional sexual practices and how this allows people to form new communities and escape feelings of loneliness and isolation (or conversely leads them to confuse passing interests for identity, creating new fetish subcultures that co-opt the rhetoric of oppression for bizarre ends).

::I'm being longwinded again. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm fine jettisoning the environmental component but would like to keep the second-half of the feedback loop in our analysis. The question shouldn't just be how there are social concerns in the way that people use the Internet, but also that the Internet may redistribute social power.--[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 06:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

==readings==

* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-16T16:18:04Z

G: /* Readings */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?
**Mark Lloyd of Center for American Progress advocating redundancy and wider access. [http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/ubiquity-requires-redundancy/]
**S. Derek Turner, “Down Payment on Our Digital Future,” Free Press, December 2008, available online at: [http://www.freepress.net/files/DownPayment_DigitalFuture.pdf].

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-16T15:34:33Z

G: /* Concluding Discussion/Case Study */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?
**Mark Lloyd of Center for American Progress advocating redundancy and wider access. [http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/ubiquity-requires-redundancy/]
**S. Derek Turner, “Down Payment on Our Digital Future,” Free Press, December 2008, available online at: [http://www.freepress.net/files/DownPayment_DigitalFuture.pdf].

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-16T15:33:35Z

G: /* Concluding Discussion/Case Study */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?
**[http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/ubiquity-requires-redundancy/]
**S. Derek Turner, “Down Payment on Our Digital Future,” Free Press, December 2008, available online at:
[http://www.freepress.net/files/DownPayment_DigitalFuture.pdf].

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-16T14:38:35Z

G: /* Concluding Discussion/Case Study */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?
**[[http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/ubiquity-requires-redundancy/]]

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-09T21:46:58Z

G: /* Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class during the presentation through the use of the Berkman Question Tool. This is an interactive mechanism by which we can receive feedback, address questions, change direction, and incorporate new ideas. Furthermore, by directing questioning away from traditional hand-raising and face-to-face communication, we hope to reflect some of the ideas we will be discussing. How will such a change alter traditional interactive dynamics between presenters and the audience? Will this empower those who otherwise would remain silent, or will it allow merely a few to continually raise their questions at the expense of others?

Those who do not bring computers to class or do not know how to use the tool will be unable to participate in this practice, a poignant reminder of unequal access concerns that animate much of this section.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-09T21:37:56Z

G: /* Invited */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class in the creation of a Firefox add-on that will track the estimated carbon footprint of an individual's Internet usage. This will involve breaking into small groups to explore individual technologies, such as Twitter, Facebook, GChat and other popular Internet tools. The methodology will be similar to that explored by Alex Wissner-Gross in his recent (and somewhat controversial) research.

The hope is to combine these estimates into a package which will allow individuals to understand part of the unseen impact their usage is having. The goal isn't merely to focus on the environmental impact of cyberspace, but explicitly to denaturalize one of the assumptions about the Internet. Environmental impact is diffuse and hidden from users, much like many of the social concerns we are addressing. While it might be hard to dramatically unearth how Internet communities are structured along certain social patterns, we feel that this might provide the kind of "eureka" moment when people realize that there's more going on that just what appears on their screen.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-09T21:37:37Z

G: /* Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.
* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

=== Invited ===
* [http://www.alexwg.org/ Alex Wissner-Gross] A fellow at Harvard who recently got media attention for work he's authoring on the environmental impact of Google searches. In addition to studying this issue, he proves an inadvertent expert on how the media often gets both academic and technical issues horribly wrong as his unpublished paper appears to have been misquoted, exaggerated, and then sensationalized.

See [http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/14/Harvard_academic_refutes_Google_carbon_footprint_story_1.html Harvard academic refutes Google carbon footprint story, Infoworld, Jan 14, 2009]

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class in the creation of a Firefox add-on that will track the estimated carbon footprint of an individual's Internet usage. This will involve breaking into small groups to explore individual technologies, such as Twitter, Facebook, GChat and other popular Internet tools. The methodology will be similar to that explored by Alex Wissner-Gross in his recent (and somewhat controversial) research.

The hope is to combine these estimates into a package which will allow individuals to understand part of the unseen impact their usage is having. The goal isn't merely to focus on the environmental impact of cyberspace, but explicitly to denaturalize one of the assumptions about the Internet. Environmental impact is diffuse and hidden from users, much like many of the social concerns we are addressing. While it might be hard to dramatically unearth how Internet communities are structured along certain social patterns, we feel that this might provide the kind of "eureka" moment when people realize that there's more going on that just what appears on their screen.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-09T21:37:11Z

G: /* Concluding Discussion/Case Study */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Other questions we'll discuss through this section: Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?

* An addendum, if we have time: Our introduction will include data on global use, as it exists. If we turn to a global perspective, how can access to the Internet affect equality in diverse international settings? What policies would be effective when dealing with populations where, as is the global average, only one-fifth of people are online?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

=== Invited ===
* [http://www.alexwg.org/ Alex Wissner-Gross] A fellow at Harvard who recently got media attention for work he's authoring on the environmental impact of Google searches. In addition to studying this issue, he proves an inadvertent expert on how the media often gets both academic and technical issues horribly wrong as his unpublished paper appears to have been misquoted, exaggerated, and then sensationalized.

See [http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/14/Harvard_academic_refutes_Google_carbon_footprint_story_1.html Harvard academic refutes Google carbon footprint story, Infoworld, Jan 14, 2009]

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class in the creation of a Firefox add-on that will track the estimated carbon footprint of an individual's Internet usage. This will involve breaking into small groups to explore individual technologies, such as Twitter, Facebook, GChat and other popular Internet tools. The methodology will be similar to that explored by Alex Wissner-Gross in his recent (and somewhat controversial) research.

The hope is to combine these estimates into a package which will allow individuals to understand part of the unseen impact their usage is having. The goal isn't merely to focus on the environmental impact of cyberspace, but explicitly to denaturalize one of the assumptions about the Internet. Environmental impact is diffuse and hidden from users, much like many of the social concerns we are addressing. While it might be hard to dramatically unearth how Internet communities are structured along certain social patterns, we feel that this might provide the kind of "eureka" moment when people realize that there's more going on that just what appears on their screen.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-09T21:28:48Z

G: /* Schedule for this session */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

=== Understanding and Defining Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

In this section, we introduce our case studythe proposed funding to expand access to broadband connections in the rural United States. We use this proposal, discussed in the Pew reading, as a context in which to discuss our central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

At this point we ask members of the seminar to '''begin submitting comments and questions using the Berkman Question Tool'''[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/iifInequity]]. Participants without laptops will experience a bit of a digital divide: they must either participate vocally or submit through a friend's terminal.

Before jumping fully into the discussion of broadband expansion, we'd like to use the group to examine ways in which the Internet may change the way we need to understand inequity. We will present some kinds of privilege and status differentials that exist in the context of the Internet, and compile a list of criteria fo shape the coming discussion.

=== Concluding Discussion/Case Study ===

* Depending on what happens in conference between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?

* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

* A special addendum, if we have time: Turning to a global perspective, we consider some of the other divides that exist online. A user whose connection is filtered by government authorities, or one who reads a language with little available material, experiences a certain realm of possibilities. We'll outline some of the barriers here for discussion.

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

=== Invited ===
* [http://www.alexwg.org/ Alex Wissner-Gross] A fellow at Harvard who recently got media attention for work he's authoring on the environmental impact of Google searches. In addition to studying this issue, he proves an inadvertent expert on how the media often gets both academic and technical issues horribly wrong as his unpublished paper appears to have been misquoted, exaggerated, and then sensationalized.

See [http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/14/Harvard_academic_refutes_Google_carbon_footprint_story_1.html Harvard academic refutes Google carbon footprint story, Infoworld, Jan 14, 2009]

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class in the creation of a Firefox add-on that will track the estimated carbon footprint of an individual's Internet usage. This will involve breaking into small groups to explore individual technologies, such as Twitter, Facebook, GChat and other popular Internet tools. The methodology will be similar to that explored by Alex Wissner-Gross in his recent (and somewhat controversial) research.

The hope is to combine these estimates into a package which will allow individuals to understand part of the unseen impact their usage is having. The goal isn't merely to focus on the environmental impact of cyberspace, but explicitly to denaturalize one of the assumptions about the Internet. Environmental impact is diffuse and hidden from users, much like many of the social concerns we are addressing. While it might be hard to dramatically unearth how Internet communities are structured along certain social patterns, we feel that this might provide the kind of "eureka" moment when people realize that there's more going on that just what appears on their screen.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-09T20:31:51Z

G: /* Understanding Inequality Online (15–20 min.) */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

=== Understanding Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

* Turning to a global perspective, we consider some of the other divides that exist online. A user whose connection is filtered by government authorities, or one who reads a language with little available material, experiences a certain realm of possibilities. We'll outline some of the barriers here for discussion.

* Central question: Is the Internet a tool to reduce inequality, and if so, how?

=== Discussion/Case Study (remainder) ===

* Depending on what happens in committee between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?

* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

=== Invited ===
* [http://www.alexwg.org/ Alex Wissner-Gross] A fellow at Harvard who recently got media attention for work he's authoring on the environmental impact of Google searches. In addition to studying this issue, he proves an inadvertent expert on how the media often gets both academic and technical issues horribly wrong as his unpublished paper appears to have been misquoted, exaggerated, and then sensationalized.

See [http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/14/Harvard_academic_refutes_Google_carbon_footprint_story_1.html Harvard academic refutes Google carbon footprint story, Infoworld, Jan 14, 2009]

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class in the creation of a Firefox add-on that will track the estimated carbon footprint of an individual's Internet usage. This will involve breaking into small groups to explore individual technologies, such as Twitter, Facebook, GChat and other popular Internet tools. The methodology will be similar to that explored by Alex Wissner-Gross in his recent (and somewhat controversial) research.

The hope is to combine these estimates into a package which will allow individuals to understand part of the unseen impact their usage is having. The goal isn't merely to focus on the environmental impact of cyberspace, but explicitly to denaturalize one of the assumptions about the Internet. Environmental impact is diffuse and hidden from users, much like many of the social concerns we are addressing. While it might be hard to dramatically unearth how Internet communities are structured along certain social patterns, we feel that this might provide the kind of "eureka" moment when people realize that there's more going on that just what appears on their screen.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-09T20:16:04Z

G: /* Introduction (approx. 45 min) */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]
== Schedule for this session ==

=== Introduction (approx. 45 min) ===

John Perry Barlow's 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" presents some people's dream for the Internet: the creation of libertarian utopia, devoid of regulation and open to free expression by all. "We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace," Barlow concludes. "May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

By the time of this particular statement of cyberspace utopianism, however, a parallel concern was emerging; even if the online world was more humane and fair, a "digital divide" between those with access to such a space and those without was attracting attention. If being online was such a great thingfor freedom, for learning, or for getting aheadwhat would happen to people who were left out?

This early focus on the digital divide quickly matured into a more complicated literature. Instead of merely asking "who" was and wasn't using the Internet, the questions first shifted to focus on "how." Of course, not everyone who uses the Internet does so in the same way. Researchers began looking at different types of connections, and differences among people's usage patterns once they are connected. Massive efforts at data mining and interpretation led to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of these differential usages. One such example continues at the Berkman Center, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public mapping the complicated blogoshere of Iran].

Learning who is using the Internet and how they are using it only brings us to the more fundamental questions. How does this differential usage divide communities or bring people together? Whose "usage" constitutes reality on the Internet and whose "usage" is largely overlooked and relegated to the background? Even if users participate differently in a growing Internet culture, do all have equal access to semiotic self-representation and cultural contribution? What are the secondary costs of hiding these differentials on a playing field that openly purports to be level?

* With the help of Eszter Hargittai, we examine the extent of our knowledge about the state of inequality among Internet users. What are the most illuminating findings from social scientists in this field? How has this area of research developed and what major questions remain to be asked?

=== Understanding Inequality Online (15–20 min.) ===

* Also with Eszter Hargittai, we review some of the frontiers of our knowledge. What questions are researchers not yet able to answer?

* Turning to a global perspective, we consider some of the other divides that exist online. A user whose connection is filtered by government authorities, or one who reads a language with little available material, experiences a certain realm of possibilities. We'll outline some of the barriers here for discussion.

=== Discussion/Case Study (remainder) ===

* Depending on what happens in committee between this writing and our meeting, the U.S. Congress either will or will not fund a large investment aimed at bringing broadband access to rural areas where it is currently unavailable. What are the pros and cons of this policy? What other means might we employ to expand opportunities?
** Are there underlying biases built into legislation like this? Does such an act represent an implicit understanding of how the Internet is to be used? Whose views are reflected in such a vision? When providing expanded access in such a manner, what is it that we are giving people? What would a bill look like that understood differential usage? How active ought a technical elite be in "giving" the Internet to underdeveloped areas? Is it possible to give under-served people the tools to construct their own relationship with the Internet, or do all such efforts carry with them a reflection of the views of their creators? From one viewpoint, educating underrepresented groups resembles an imperialist attempt to impose the worldview of the powerful upon the experiences of the subordinated. From another perspective, this form of education is the only possible way to bridge preexisting divides and denying these groups access to fundamental infrastructure denies them equal opportunity to succeed in a modern networked society. Can these positions be reconciled?

* Has the Internet changed the criteria by which we might define inequality? The proposed funding for broadband might suggest it does. What factors other than access are most relevant? Does a person's ability to control what a Google search for one's name calls up impact opportunities?

== Guests ==

=== Confirmed ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.

=== Invited ===
* [http://www.alexwg.org/ Alex Wissner-Gross] A fellow at Harvard who recently got media attention for work he's authoring on the environmental impact of Google searches. In addition to studying this issue, he proves an inadvertent expert on how the media often gets both academic and technical issues horribly wrong as his unpublished paper appears to have been misquoted, exaggerated, and then sensationalized.

See [http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/14/Harvard_academic_refutes_Google_carbon_footprint_story_1.html Harvard academic refutes Google carbon footprint story, Infoworld, Jan 14, 2009]

== Readings ==

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/273/report_display.asp John Horrigan. "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?" Pew Internet and American Life Project. Jan 21,2009]

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class in the creation of a Firefox add-on that will track the estimated carbon footprint of an individual's Internet usage. This will involve breaking into small groups to explore individual technologies, such as Twitter, Facebook, GChat and other popular Internet tools. The methodology will be similar to that explored by Alex Wissner-Gross in his recent (and somewhat controversial) research.

The hope is to combine these estimates into a package which will allow individuals to understand part of the unseen impact their usage is having. The goal isn't merely to focus on the environmental impact of cyberspace, but explicitly to denaturalize one of the assumptions about the Internet. Environmental impact is diffuse and hidden from users, much like many of the social concerns we are addressing. While it might be hard to dramatically unearth how Internet communities are structured along certain social patterns, we feel that this might provide the kind of "eureka" moment when people realize that there's more going on that just what appears on their screen.

User:G

2009-02-08T21:25:52Z

G: /* Notes Session One (Groundhog Day) Feb. 2, 2009 */

Hi everyone, I'm [http://gwbstr.com Graham]. I'm a first year master's student in Regional Studies–East Asia, primarily studying contemporary Chinese and Japanese politics and society.

==== Why I'm Here ====

I'm interested in this course because:

* I work on internet society in this East Asian context.
* I used to write a blog on China and technology at CNET called [http://news.cnet.com/sinobyte/ Sinobyte].
* I'm trying to develop a blog on transpacific relations into a better resource for scholars working on East Asia and the Americas. The blog is called [http://transpacifica.net Transpacifica].
* And I've been fooling around with whatever is available on the internet for years.

==== Where I Am Here ====

As of now, I'm working on our session on [[The Internet and Societal Inequity]], which will probably be renamed soon enough. --[[User:G|G]] 02:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-07T22:30:57Z

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-07T21:38:48Z

G: /* Invited */

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-07T21:38:30Z

G: /* Invited */

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-07T21:37:19Z

G: /* Readings */

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-07T21:34:34Z

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-07T21:33:46Z

G: /* Anything else material towards planning your topic */

Talk:The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-07T21:29:27Z

=== Title ===

I'll suggest: ''The Internet and the Offline World?'' Is this uncomfortably dichotomizing? I think it can nicely incorporate both social inequity and environmental impacts of online actions. --[[User:G|G]] 02:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if I like that title as it implies a sharp dichotomy between the two. When we speak of the Internet, although we rarely do so precisely, we often think of a reified location, a sort of Internet-as-place. Specifically we often think of it as "cyberspace" -- in many ways not of this world or at least not bound by many of the constraints of this world. I'm hesitant to continue that distinction. Some of the more recent literature on these issues focuses on how we've imported much of our prejudices and constraints into the social fabric of the Internet and that there isn't as sharp a divide as we thought. Turns out Second Life is even more racist and sexist than this one. These are topics I think would be interesting and playing off the tension between the Internet and the Offline World could be fun; let's not assume a conclusion here.

:Anyway, that's a long way to say that I'd prefer the title "The Internet and Inequity." I think the word societal is misleading if we're going to include OLPC and some of the digital divide issues, as well as environmental concerns. The social aspects often include issues of gender, sexual identity, ageism, race, and education, which might be more interesting to focus on, but subsuming the environmental and developmental elements under the aegis seems overly broad to me. Anytime you bring up the word inequity, you instantly become the "cold stream" of the curriculum, but it might be worth embracing. It might be nice to have a break from technophilia. --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 06:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

== feb 2 feedback ==

* would like a concrete example
* what is inequity? by what criteria would we define it?

== Framing ==

=== Precis ===

Many of the frontiers of the internet are located at the present upper limit of innovation or social development, but the most vivid frontier is the border between online and offline. This session is designed to complicate that division and explore solutions to some of the problems it presents. After years of discussion of a "digital divide" between people with and without internet access, some social scientists have turned their attention to the differences in ways people use the internet. Are people logging on to take full advantage of the latest collaborative media and an empowering access to information? Are they logging on to shop and chat, but not seeing the same benefits as early adopters? Relatedly, how do the internet and its social configurations affect people who do not log on? Does increased connectedness among people who are online isolate those who aren't from opportunity?

A second important way in which rapid growth of internet infrastructure affects the offline world is that, indeed, the internet has a physical infrastructure. From individual terminals to fiber-optic lines and data centers, the physical footprint in mineral and energy consumption is enormous. Moreover, the conditions of disassembly and recycle of retired machinery are usually not ideal. Indeed, recent media reports have explored the intensity of environmental and human impact in "illegal" but thriving e-waste processing towns in China and elsewhere. The human impact, in the form of noxious inhalation and contaminated food and water supplies, is unsurprisingly felt by people who already have few socioeconomic opportunities.

In this session, we set out to address how online society can reduce its own negative impact, or even work toward positive effects specifically targeted at the externalities of a thriving online space.

=== Concrete question(s) of the week ===

* How can online society incentivize responsible offline behavior?
* What might a "responsible surfing" campaign look like, and what would be its metrics?
* Can computers and other network components be built for safer disassembly and easier recycling?
* Is the Internet a place where all are welcome, where all have equal access, where all can participate equally? If not why not and how so?
* How does the Internet affect the distribution of social and cultural power?

== Preliminary Framing ==

=== Socio-technical Gap ===

Problems encountered in the act of discoursing itself are sometimes addressed via social means, technological means, or both. It has been suggested that technological tools should support social processes, but there is an adaptation of each realm to the other - how does this back-and-forth take place in the design of a successful technology-enabled discussion?

Which inequalities are created or strengthened due the increasing reliance on technology and the differences in the ability to access the Internet(e.g. global and socio-economic differences)? Does the net actually re-distribute and decentralize power and influence, or does it also reinforce the existing political and economic hierarchies? In short - is the Internet really a good thing for everybody?

=== One Laptop Per Child ===

Happy to help this group with info as I can. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]]

=== Environmental Concerns ===

To what extent is the hardware upon which the Internet exists damaging the environment? Where does old tech go when it dies? What distributive impact does the "recycling" of old tech have. Was the Internet build with principles of physical sustainbility in mind? Is it too late to change? How do individual companies, like Google, view their own practices? Does the cost of a server internalize the cost of disposal? Why has it been cheaper to just keep throwing on new machines? What of the electricity necessary to run these machines? What does it say about society that we are so willing to pollute our own communities to create a second life? Has technological innovation and advancement dislocated the true impact of non-zero cost transactions? --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 19:36, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps a way to innovate on these questions would be a system for tracking these offline effects of online behavior. Track hardware? A certification scheme? A carbon footprint clock for ''online'' activities? --[[User:G|G]] 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Very good topic. I'd recommend focusing on the first half, which is rich enough to fill a whole session and associated readings and mindshare, rather than dividing between the latest on digital divide stuff and the environmental stuff. Eszter would be a natural guest for this, and I think it would be great to push her to policy proposals -- something social scientists usually shy away from. What would she want gov't or others to do to address the more subtle inequalities she wants to highlight? Whenever various people call for "more education" as a solution, as a practical matter, is that a solution at all? (Are there examples of "more education" working, when deployed in a self-conscious way? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that Eszter would be one of the best possible people for this topic. We could also consider bringing in more social scientists like Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, but I think that might get redundant. The Envronmental concerns and the development concerns are separatable, but I might want to reconceive the first half into two components. The first would be: how do different people use the Internet if different ways and how does this disparate usage and access affect their Internet experience. The second would be: how does the Internet deepen and further pre-existing inequity in society, create new problems, or address old problems? These issues are related but not identical. We could explore how a culture of lulz means that young men in the suburbs are more likely to feel comfortable on pseudoanonymous bulliten boards and in turn how that might lead to a deepening of the gender gap when they turn their anger on classmates. We could talk about the use of social networking among people with non-traditional sexual practices and how this allows people to form new communities and escape feelings of loneliness and isolation (or conversely leads them to confuse passing interests for identity, creating new fetish subcultures that co-opt the rhetoric of oppression for bizarre ends).

::I'm being longwinded again. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm fine jettisoning the environmental component but would like to keep the second-half of the feedback loop in our analysis. The question shouldn't just be how there are social concerns in the way that people use the Internet, but also that the Internet may redistribute social power.--[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 06:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-07T21:29:21Z

Scheduling

2009-02-02T23:32:00Z

Here's where the scheduling happens. No need to claim a day landrush-style; just add in what day your guests have said they're available.

{| {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Monday (5-7pm)'''
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Presenters' names'''
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Topic name'''
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Guests (confirmed)'''
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Guests (not yet confirmed)'''
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|This||is||a||sample||line.
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|2-Feb||||||||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|9-Feb||Ayelet, Aaron||[[Encouraging the Intellectual Commons|Free and Open Source Software]]||||Eben Moglen or someone from the Software Freedom Law Center, Mako
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|16-Feb||Graham, Mark||[[The Internet and Societal Inequity|Internet and Social Inequity]]||Eszter Hargittai||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|23-Feb||Debbie, Shubham, and Matt||[[Old Laws/New Media]]||Prof. Charles Nesson||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|2-Mar||Mel, Elana, Rainer||[[All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org]]||Ethan Zuckerman||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|9-Mar||Dharmishta Rood & Jon Fildes||[[The Future of News]]||||Russ Stanton, Jeff Jarvis||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|16-Mar||Joe & Miriam||[[The Future of %C2%A9 and entertainment|The Future of (c) & Entertainment]]||Stacey Lynn Schulman|| Various artists
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|30-Mar||Gwen, Jon, Lee||[[The Internet and Publication]]||Prof. John Palfrey||Robert Darnton, Jonathan Hulbert, Corey Williams, Prue Adler
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|6-Apr||Dan Ray, Joshua Gruenspecht, & Conor Kennedy||[[Anonymity and privacy|The Increasingly Inaccurately Named Class on Anonymity & Privacy]]||'''Guest 1:''' Colin Maclay||'''Guest 2:''' Andrew McLaughlin, a rep from Yahoo's Bus. & Hum. Rights Program, or another rep of an international online communications tools provider; '''Guest 3:''' a representative of or expert on the Simulation Country OR a representative of a human rights group OR a Congressional representative (e.g., Rick Boucher, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Boucher House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet]; Chris Smith, [http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=27237 House Representative from New Jersey])
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|13-Apr||Andrew Klaber & David Levine||[[Internet, Industry, and Investing|The Internet, Industry and Investing]]||Peter Thiel||Peter Thiel (PayPal founder, Facebook early investor, Clarium Capital hedge fund founder, The Founders Fund venture capital founder)
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|20-Apr||Vera Ranieri & Arjun Mehra||[[Internet Governance and Regulation|Internet Governance & Regulation]]||Milton Mueller of the Internet Governance Project||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|27-Apr|||Elisabeth Theodore & Matthew Wansley||[[Prediction Markets]]||Justin Wolfers||Hal Varian

Syllabus

2009-02-02T23:30:16Z

In the order per the schedule on the first day of seminar (the schedule lives [[Scheduling|here]]):

== Free and Open Source Software ==
[[Free and Open Source Software]]

'''Topic Owners: [[User:dulles|dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==
[[The Internet and Societal Inequity]]

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

== Old Laws/New Media ==

[[Old Laws/New Media]]

'''Topic Owners: [[User:smukherjee|Shubham Mukherjee]], [[User:DebbieRosenbaum|Debbie Rosenbaum]], [[User:MSanchez|Matt Sanchez]]'''

== All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org ==
[[All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org]]

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''

== The Future of News ==
[[The Future of News]]

Topic owners: [[User:Drood]], [[User:jf]]

== The Future of Copyright and Entertainment ==
[[The Future of Copyright and Entertainment]]

''Topic owners:'' ''[[User:Jfishman|Joe]], [[User:Miriam|Miriam]]''

== The Internet and Publication ==
[[The Internet and Publication]]

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

== Anonymity and privacy ==
[[Anonymity and privacy]]

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''', '''[[User:CKennedy|Conor]]''', '''[[User:Jgruensp|Joshua]]'''

== Internet + Industry + Investing ==

Topic owners: Andrew Klaber and DAL
[[Internet, Industry, and Investing]]

== Internet Governance and Regulation ==
[[Internet Governance and Regulation]]

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

== Prediction Markets ==
[[Prediction Markets]]

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]''', '''[[User:EST|Elisabeth]]'''

Syllabus

2009-02-02T23:29:21Z

G: order syllabus page per schedule

In no particular order (the schedule lives [[Scheduling|here]]):

== Free and Open Source Software ==
[[Free and Open Source Software]]

'''Topic Owners: [[User:dulles|dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==
[[The Internet and Societal Inequity]]

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

== Old Laws/New Media ==

[[Old Laws/New Media]]

'''Topic Owners: [[User:smukherjee|Shubham Mukherjee]], [[User:DebbieRosenbaum|Debbie Rosenbaum]], [[User:MSanchez|Matt Sanchez]]'''

== All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org ==
[[All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org]]

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''

== The Future of News ==
[[The Future of News]]

Topic owners: [[User:Drood]], [[User:jf]]

== The Future of Copyright and Entertainment ==
[[The Future of Copyright and Entertainment]]

''Topic owners:'' ''[[User:Jfishman|Joe]], [[User:Miriam|Miriam]]''

== The Internet and Publication ==
[[The Internet and Publication]]

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

== Anonymity and privacy ==
[[Anonymity and privacy]]

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''', '''[[User:CKennedy|Conor]]''', '''[[User:Jgruensp|Joshua]]'''

== Internet + Industry + Investing ==

Topic owners: Andrew Klaber and DAL
[[Internet, Industry, and Investing]]

== Internet Governance and Regulation ==
[[Internet Governance and Regulation]]

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

== Prediction Markets ==
[[Prediction Markets]]

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]''', '''[[User:EST|Elisabeth]]'''

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-02T22:22:35Z

G: /* Working Framing */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

== Framing ==

=== Precis ===

Many of the frontiers of the internet are located at the present upper limit of innovation or social development, but the most vivid frontier is the border between online and offline. This session is designed to complicate that division and explore solutions to some of the problems it presents. After years of discussion of a "digital divide" between people with and without internet access, some social scientists have turned their attention to the differences in ways people use the internet. Are people logging on to take full advantage of the latest collaborative media and an empowering access to information? Are they logging on to shop and chat, but not seeing the same benefits as early adopters? Relatedly, how do the internet and its social configurations affect people who do not log on? Does increased connectedness among people who are online isolate those who aren't from opportunity?

A second important way in which rapid growth of internet infrastructure affects the offline world is that, indeed, the internet has a physical infrastructure. From individual terminals to fiber-optic lines and data centers, the physical footprint in mineral and energy consumption is enormous. Moreover, the conditions of disassembly and recycle of retired machinery are usually not ideal. Indeed, recent media reports have explored the intensity of environmental and human impact in "illegal" but thriving e-waste processing towns in China and elsewhere. The human impact, in the form of noxious inhalation and contaminated food and water supplies, is unsurprisingly felt by people who already have few socioeconomic opportunities.

In this session, we set out to address how online society can reduce its own negative impact, or even work toward positive effects specifically targeted at the externalities of a thriving online space.

=== Invited Guests ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.
* [http://www.alexwg.org/ Alex Wissner-Gross] A fellow at Harvard who recently got media attention for work he's authoring on the environmental impact of Google searches. In addition to studying this issue, he proves an inadvertent expert on how the media often gets both academic and technical issues horribly wrong as his unpublished paper appears to have been misquoted, exaggerated, and then sensationalized.

=== Readings ===

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=participation-divide Hargittai, E. & G. Walejko. (2008). The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age. Information, Communication and Society.]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html Mattathias Schwartz, Malwebolence - The World of Web Trolling]
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/14/Harvard_academic_refutes_Google_carbon_footprint_story_1.html Harvard academic refutes Google carbon footprint story]

=== Concrete question(s) of the week ===

* How can online society incentivize responsible offline behavior?
* What might a "responsible surfing" campaign look like, and what would be its metrics?
* Can computers and other network components be built for safer disassembly and easier recycling?
* Is the Internet a place where all are welcome, where all have equal access, where all can participate equally? If not why not and how so?
* How does the Internet affect the distribution of social and cultural power?

=== Anything else material towards planning your topic ===

== Preliminary Framing ==

=== Socio-technical Gap ===

Problems encountered in the act of discoursing itself are sometimes addressed via social means, technological means, or both. It has been suggested that technological tools should support social processes, but there is an adaptation of each realm to the other - how does this back-and-forth take place in the design of a successful technology-enabled discussion?

Which inequalities are created or strengthened due the increasing reliance on technology and the differences in the ability to access the Internet(e.g. global and socio-economic differences)? Does the net actually re-distribute and decentralize power and influence, or does it also reinforce the existing political and economic hierarchies? In short - is the Internet really a good thing for everybody?

=== One Laptop Per Child ===

Happy to help this group with info as I can. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]]

=== Environmental Concerns ===

To what extent is the hardware upon which the Internet exists damaging the environment? Where does old tech go when it dies? What distributive impact does the "recycling" of old tech have. Was the Internet build with principles of physical sustainbility in mind? Is it too late to change? How do individual companies, like Google, view their own practices? Does the cost of a server internalize the cost of disposal? Why has it been cheaper to just keep throwing on new machines? What of the electricity necessary to run these machines? What does it say about society that we are so willing to pollute our own communities to create a second life? Has technological innovation and advancement dislocated the true impact of non-zero cost transactions? --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 19:36, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps a way to innovate on these questions would be a system for tracking these offline effects of online behavior. Track hardware? A certification scheme? A carbon footprint clock for ''online'' activities? --[[User:G|G]] 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Very good topic. I'd recommend focusing on the first half, which is rich enough to fill a whole session and associated readings and mindshare, rather than dividing between the latest on digital divide stuff and the environmental stuff. Eszter would be a natural guest for this, and I think it would be great to push her to policy proposals -- something social scientists usually shy away from. What would she want gov't or others to do to address the more subtle inequalities she wants to highlight? Whenever various people call for "more education" as a solution, as a practical matter, is that a solution at all? (Are there examples of "more education" working, when deployed in a self-conscious way? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that Eszter would be one of the best possible people for this topic. We could also consider bringing in more social scientists like Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, but I think that might get redundant. The Envronmental concerns and the development concerns are separatable, but I might want to reconceive the first half into two components. The first would be: how do different people use the Internet if different ways and how does this disparate usage and access affect their Internet experience. The second would be: how does the Internet deepen and further pre-existing inequity in society, create new problems, or address old problems? These issues are related but not identical. We could explore how a culture of lulz means that young men in the suburbs are more likely to feel comfortable on pseudoanonymous bulliten boards and in turn how that might lead to a deepening of the gender gap when they turn their anger on classmates. We could talk about the use of social networking among people with non-traditional sexual practices and how this allows people to form new communities and escape feelings of loneliness and isolation (or conversely leads them to confuse passing interests for identity, creating new fetish subcultures that co-opt the rhetoric of oppression for bizarre ends).

::I'm being longwinded again. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm fine jettisoning the environmental component but would like to keep the second-half of the feedback loop in our analysis. The question shouldn't just be how there are social concerns in the way that people use the Internet, but also that the Internet may redistribute social power.--[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 06:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class in the creation of a Firefox add-on that will track the estimated carbon footprint of an individual's Internet usage. This will involve breaking into small groups to explore individual technologies, such as Twitter, Facebook, GChat and other popular Internet tools. The methodology will be similar to that explored by Alex Wissner-Gross in his recent (and somewhat controversial) research.

The hope is to combine these estimates into a package which will allow individuals to understand part of the unseen impact their usage is having. The goal isn't merely to focus on the environmental impact of cyberspace, but explicitly to denaturalize one of the assumptions about the Internet. Environmental impact is diffuse and hidden from users, much like many of the social concerns we are addressing. While it might be hard to dramatically unearth how Internet communities are structured along certain social patterns, we feel that this might provide the kind of "eureka" moment when people realize that there's more going on that just what appears on their screen.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-02T22:17:19Z

G: /* Precis */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

== Working Framing ==

=== Precis ===

Many of the frontiers of the internet are located at the present upper limit of innovation or social development, but the most vivid frontier is the border between online and offline. This session is designed to complicate that division and explore solutions to some of the problems it presents. After years of discussion of a "digital divide" between people with and without internet access, some social scientists have turned their attention to the differences in ways people use the internet. Are people logging on to take full advantage of the latest collaborative media and an empowering access to information? Are they logging on to shop and chat, but not seeing the same benefits as early adopters? Relatedly, how do the internet and its social configurations affect people who do not log on? Does increased connectedness among people who are online isolate those who aren't from opportunity?

A second important way in which rapid growth of internet infrastructure affects the offline world is that, indeed, the internet has a physical infrastructure. From individual terminals to fiber-optic lines and data centers, the physical footprint in mineral and energy consumption is enormous. Moreover, the conditions of disassembly and recycle of retired machinery are usually not ideal. Indeed, recent media reports have explored the intensity of environmental and human impact in "illegal" but thriving e-waste processing towns in China and elsewhere. The human impact, in the form of noxious inhalation and contaminated food and water supplies, is unsurprisingly felt by people who already have few socioeconomic opportunities.

In this session, we set out to address how online society can reduce its own negative impact, or even work toward positive effects specifically targeted at the externalities of a thriving online space.

=== Invited Guests ===

* [http://www.eszter.com/ Eszter Hargittai] A present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.
* [http://www.alexwg.org/ Alex Wissner-Gross] A fellow at Harvard who recently got media attention for work he's authoring on the environmental impact of Google searches. In addition to studying this issue, he proves an inadvertent expert on how the media often gets both academic and technical issues horribly wrong as his unpublished paper appears to have been misquoted, exaggerated, and then sensationalized.

=== Readings ===

* [http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html John Perry Barlow, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=participation-divide Hargittai, E. & G. Walejko. (2008). The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age. Information, Communication and Society.]
* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=digital-reproduction-of-inequality Hargittai, E. (2008). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In Social Stratification. Edited by David Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 936-944]
* Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak and Ann E. Schlosser. 2001. “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage over Time.” Pp. 47-98 in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, ed. Benjamin M. Compaigne.
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html Mattathias Schwartz, Malwebolence - The World of Web Trolling]
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).
* [http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/14/Harvard_academic_refutes_Google_carbon_footprint_story_1.html Harvard academic refutes Google carbon footprint story]

=== Concrete question(s) of the week ===

* How can online society incentivize responsible offline behavior?
* What might a "responsible surfing" campaign look like, and what would be its metrics?
* Can computers and other network components be built for safer disassembly and easier recycling?
* Is the Internet a place where all are welcome, where all have equal access, where all can participate equally? If not why not and how so?
* How does the Internet affect the distribution of social and cultural power?

=== Anything else material towards planning your topic ===

== Preliminary Framing ==

=== Socio-technical Gap ===

Problems encountered in the act of discoursing itself are sometimes addressed via social means, technological means, or both. It has been suggested that technological tools should support social processes, but there is an adaptation of each realm to the other - how does this back-and-forth take place in the design of a successful technology-enabled discussion?

Which inequalities are created or strengthened due the increasing reliance on technology and the differences in the ability to access the Internet(e.g. global and socio-economic differences)? Does the net actually re-distribute and decentralize power and influence, or does it also reinforce the existing political and economic hierarchies? In short - is the Internet really a good thing for everybody?

=== One Laptop Per Child ===

Happy to help this group with info as I can. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]]

=== Environmental Concerns ===

To what extent is the hardware upon which the Internet exists damaging the environment? Where does old tech go when it dies? What distributive impact does the "recycling" of old tech have. Was the Internet build with principles of physical sustainbility in mind? Is it too late to change? How do individual companies, like Google, view their own practices? Does the cost of a server internalize the cost of disposal? Why has it been cheaper to just keep throwing on new machines? What of the electricity necessary to run these machines? What does it say about society that we are so willing to pollute our own communities to create a second life? Has technological innovation and advancement dislocated the true impact of non-zero cost transactions? --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 19:36, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps a way to innovate on these questions would be a system for tracking these offline effects of online behavior. Track hardware? A certification scheme? A carbon footprint clock for ''online'' activities? --[[User:G|G]] 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Very good topic. I'd recommend focusing on the first half, which is rich enough to fill a whole session and associated readings and mindshare, rather than dividing between the latest on digital divide stuff and the environmental stuff. Eszter would be a natural guest for this, and I think it would be great to push her to policy proposals -- something social scientists usually shy away from. What would she want gov't or others to do to address the more subtle inequalities she wants to highlight? Whenever various people call for "more education" as a solution, as a practical matter, is that a solution at all? (Are there examples of "more education" working, when deployed in a self-conscious way? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that Eszter would be one of the best possible people for this topic. We could also consider bringing in more social scientists like Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, but I think that might get redundant. The Envronmental concerns and the development concerns are separatable, but I might want to reconceive the first half into two components. The first would be: how do different people use the Internet if different ways and how does this disparate usage and access affect their Internet experience. The second would be: how does the Internet deepen and further pre-existing inequity in society, create new problems, or address old problems? These issues are related but not identical. We could explore how a culture of lulz means that young men in the suburbs are more likely to feel comfortable on pseudoanonymous bulliten boards and in turn how that might lead to a deepening of the gender gap when they turn their anger on classmates. We could talk about the use of social networking among people with non-traditional sexual practices and how this allows people to form new communities and escape feelings of loneliness and isolation (or conversely leads them to confuse passing interests for identity, creating new fetish subcultures that co-opt the rhetoric of oppression for bizarre ends).

::I'm being longwinded again. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm fine jettisoning the environmental component but would like to keep the second-half of the feedback loop in our analysis. The question shouldn't just be how there are social concerns in the way that people use the Internet, but also that the Internet may redistribute social power.--[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 06:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

== Class Participation ==

We hope to involve the class in the creation of a Firefox add-on that will track the estimated carbon footprint of an individual's Internet usage. This will involve breaking into small groups to explore individual technologies, such as Twitter, Facebook, GChat and other popular Internet tools. The methodology will be similar to that explored by Alex Wissner-Gross in his recent (and somewhat controversial) research.

The hope is to combine these estimates into a package which will allow individuals to understand part of the unseen impact their usage is having. The goal isn't merely to focus on the environmental impact of cyberspace, but explicitly to denaturalize one of the assumptions about the Internet. Environmental impact is diffuse and hidden from users, much like many of the social concerns we are addressing. While it might be hard to dramatically unearth how Internet communities are structured along certain social patterns, we feel that this might provide the kind of "eureka" moment when people realize that there's more going on that just what appears on their screen.

User:G

2009-02-02T22:06:57Z

G: add notes sec

User talk:Megerman

2009-02-02T22:01:39Z

G: New page: Hey -- If you're checking this... I'm in the corner in a gray shirt.--~~~~

Hey -- If you're checking this... I'm in the corner in a gray shirt.--[[User:G|G]] 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Scheduling

2009-01-13T16:08:13Z

Talk:Internet, Environment, and Venture Capital

2008-12-27T22:21:38Z

Just a heads up-- We have some environment-related content filed over under [[The Internet and Societal Inequity]]. If this session is to touch on similar issues, let's coordinate to avoid overlap. --[[User:G|G]] 02:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Looks like we'll not be emphasizing environment over at our topic. I'll try to gather environment-related ideas so that you all might benefit from what we've already shot around. --[[User:G|G]] 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-27T22:19:21Z

G: /* Guest wish list (if any) */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

== Working Framing ==

=== Title ===

I'll suggest: ''The Internet and the Offline World?'' Is this uncomfortably dichotomizing? I think it can nicely incorporate both social inequity and environmental impacts of online actions. --[[User:G|G]] 02:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if I like that title as it implies a sharp dichotomy between the two. When we speak of the Internet, although we rarely do so precisely, we often think of a reified location, a sort of Internet-as-place. Specifically we often think of it as "cyberspace" -- in many ways not of this world or at least not bound by many of the constraints of this world. I'm hesitant to continue that distinction. Some of the more recent literature on these issues focuses on how we've imported much of our prejudices and constraints into the social fabric of the Internet and that there isn't as sharp a divide as we thought. Turns out Second Life is even more racist and sexist than this one. These are topics I think would be interesting and playing off the tension between the Internet and the Offline World could be fun; let's not assume a conclusion here.

:Anyway, that's a long way to say that I'd prefer the title "The Internet and Inequity." I think the word societal is misleading if we're going to include OLPC and some of the digital divide issues, as well as environmental concerns. The social aspects often include issues of gender, sexual identity, ageism, race, and education, which might be more interesting to focus on, but subsuming the environmental and developmental elements under the aegis seems overly broad to me. Anytime you bring up the word inequity, you instantly become the "cold stream" of the curriculum, but it might be worth embracing. It might be nice to have a break from technophilia. --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 06:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Precis ===

Many of the frontiers of the internet are located at the present upper limit of innovation or social development, but the most vivid frontier is the border between online and offline. This session is designed to complicate that division and explore solutions to some of the problems it presents. After years of discussion of a "digital divide" between people with and without internet access, some social scientists have turned their attention to the differences in ways people use the internet. Are people logging on to take full advantage of the latest collaborative media and an empowering access to information? Are they logging on to shop and chat, but not seeing the same benefits as early adopters? Relatedly, how does the internet and its social configurations affect people who do not log on? Does increased connectedness among people who are online isolate those who aren't from opportunity?

A second important way in which rapid growth of internet infrastructure affects the offline world is that, indeed, the internet has a physical infrastructure. From individual terminals to fiber-optic lines and data centers, the physical footprint in mineral and energy consumption is enormous. Moreover, the conditions of disassembly and recycle of retired machinery are usually not ideal. Indeed, recent media reports have explored the intensity of environmental and human impact in "illegal" but thriving e-waste processing towns in China and elsewhere. The human impact, in the form of noxious inhalation and contaminated food and water supplies, is unsurprisingly felt by people who already have few socioeconomic opportunities.

In this session, we set out to address how online society can reduce its own negative impact, or even work toward positive effects specifically targeted at the externalities of a thriving online space.

=== Guest wish list (if any) ===

* Eszter Hargittai, who is a present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample among other things on the topic of social inequality and the internet.
* Someone who understands the environmental impacts and contexts of computer components?

=== Readings (if any yet; OK to be preliminary) ===

* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=participation-divide Hargittai, E. & G. Walejko. (2008). The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age. Information, Communication and Society.]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html Mattathias Schwartz, Malwebolence - The World of Web Trolling]
* Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).

=== Concrete question(s) of the week ===

* How can online society incentivize responsible offline behavior?
* What might a "responsible surfing" campaign look like, and what would be its metrics?
* Can computers and other network components be built for safer disassembly and easier recycling?
* Is the Internet a place where all are welcome, where all have equal access, where all can participate equally? If not why not and how so?
* How does the Internet affect the distribution of social and cultural power?

=== Anything else material towards planning your topic ===

== Preliminary Framing ==

=== Socio-technical Gap ===

Problems encountered in the act of discoursing itself are sometimes addressed via social means, technological means, or both. It has been suggested that technological tools should support social processes, but there is an adaptation of each realm to the other - how does this back-and-forth take place in the design of a successful technology-enabled discussion?

Which inequalities are created or strengthened due the increasing reliance on technology and the differences in the ability to access the Internet(e.g. global and socio-economic differences)? Does the net actually re-distribute and decentralize power and influence, or does it also reinforce the existing political and economic hierarchies? In short - is the Internet really a good thing for everybody?

=== One Laptop Per Child ===

Happy to help this group with info as I can. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]]

=== Environmental Concerns ===

To what extent is the hardware upon which the Internet exists damaging the environment? Where does old tech go when it dies? What distributive impact does the "recycling" of old tech have. Was the Internet build with principles of physical sustainbility in mind? Is it too late to change? How do individual companies, like Google, view their own practices? Does the cost of a server internalize the cost of disposal? Why has it been cheaper to just keep throwing on new machines? What of the electricity necessary to run these machines? What does it say about society that we are so willing to pollute our own communities to create a second life? Has technological innovation and advancement dislocated the true impact of non-zero cost transactions? --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 19:36, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps a way to innovate on these questions would be a system for tracking these offline effects of online behavior. Track hardware? A certification scheme? A carbon footprint clock for ''online'' activities? --[[User:G|G]] 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Very good topic. I'd recommend focusing on the first half, which is rich enough to fill a whole session and associated readings and mindshare, rather than dividing between the latest on digital divide stuff and the environmental stuff. Eszter would be a natural guest for this, and I think it would be great to push her to policy proposals -- something social scientists usually shy away from. What would she want gov't or others to do to address the more subtle inequalities she wants to highlight? Whenever various people call for "more education" as a solution, as a practical matter, is that a solution at all? (Are there examples of "more education" working, when deployed in a self-conscious way? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that Eszter would be one of the best possible people for this topic. We could also consider bringing in more social scientists like Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, but I think that might get redundant. The Envronmental concerns and the development concerns are separatable, but I might want to reconceive the first half into two components. The first would be: how do different people use the Internet if different ways and how does this disparate usage and access affect their Internet experience. The second would be: how does the Internet deepen and further pre-existing inequity in society, create new problems, or address old problems? These issues are related but not identical. We could explore how a culture of lulz means that young men in the suburbs are more likely to feel comfortable on pseudoanonymous bulliten boards and in turn how that might lead to a deepening of the gender gap when they turn their anger on classmates. We could talk about the use of social networking among people with non-traditional sexual practices and how this allows people to form new communities and escape feelings of loneliness and isolation (or conversely leads them to confuse passing interests for identity, creating new fetish subcultures that co-opt the rhetoric of oppression for bizarre ends).

::I'm being longwinded again. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm fine jettisoning the environmental component but would like to keep the second-half of the feedback loop in our analysis. The question shouldn't just be how there are social concerns in the way that people use the Internet, but also that the Internet may redistribute social power.--[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 06:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Internet, Environment, and Venture Capital

2008-12-14T02:49:24Z

G: New page: ''Delete this when creating real page, but a note about potential overlap is in discussion. --~~~~''

''Delete this when creating real page, but a note about potential overlap is in discussion. --[[User:G|G]] 02:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)''

Talk:Internet, Environment, and Venture Capital

2008-12-14T02:47:49Z

G: note possible overlap with Inequity session

User:G

2008-12-14T02:43:10Z

G: /* Where I Am Here */

User:G

2008-12-14T02:42:31Z

G: add which panel i'm on

Hi everyone, I'm [http://gwbstr.com Graham]. I'm a first year master's student in Regional Studies–East Asia, primarily studying contemporary Chinese and Japanese politics and society.

==== Why I'm Here ====

I'm interested in this course because:

* I work on internet society in this East Asian context.
* I used to write a blog on China and technology at CNET called [http://news.cnet.com/sinobyte/ Sinobyte].
* I'm trying to develop a blog on transpacific relations into a better resource for scholars working on East Asia and the Americas. The blog is called [http://transpacifica.net Transpacifica].
* And I've been fooling around with whatever is available on the internet for years.

==== Where I Am Here ====

As of now, I'm working on our session on [[The_Internet_and_Societal_Inequity]], which will probably be renamed soon enough. --[[User:G|G]] 02:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-14T02:37:34Z

G: /* Concrete question(s) of the week */

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-14T02:37:05Z

G: /* Guest wish list (if any) */

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-14T02:35:58Z

G: /* Concrete question(s) of the week */

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-14T02:34:06Z

G: /* Readings (if any yet; OK to be preliminary) */

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-14T02:33:19Z

G: /* Readings (if any yet; OK to be preliminary) */

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-14T02:31:03Z

G: /* Socio-technical Gap */