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

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-05-24T05:35:11Z

Megerman: /* For future iterations */

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.

* One further issues that could be discussed include both the environmental impact of Internet and related technologies and how these concerns may be overlooked as they go unseen from the user of a computer and the impact is most strongly felt in less developed parts of the world. Unlike traditional industrial practices, where pollution is closely tied to production and visible to many end-users, the Internet appears to its users as costless and without a physical impact. Already some companies are changing their practices, especially those with major data centers such as Google. Certainly these issues, including a discussion of distributional impacts of climate change, will become a significant concern when discussing the future of the Internet.

* Another significant issue that could receive more attention in future iterations of this section or perhaps included as its own discussion revolves around cyberharassment and the treatment of certain groups on the Internet. One reading was included in our iteration and more are included below. This is a growth area for cyberlaw scholars and new lawsuits continue to shape this area of law.

=== 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)]

===For future iterations===

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271900 Danielle Citron, Cyber Civil Rights, 89 Bos. U. L. Rev. 61 (2009)]
* [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/online_symposiu.html Concurring Opinions Online Symposium on Cyber Civil Rights] (this is merely the launch page, there are over two dozen high-quality posts and responses published)
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1374533 Mary Anne Franks, Unwilling Avatars: Sexual Harassment in Cyberspace, forthcoming]
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/barnes-v-yahoo-section-230-does-not-insulate-online-service-provider-from-contractual-liab Barnes v. Yahoo discussion]

== 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

2009-05-24T03:58:20Z

Megerman: /* Readings */

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.

* One further issues that could be discussed include both the environmental impact of Internet and related technologies and how these concerns may be overlooked as they go unseen from the user of a computer and the impact is most strongly felt in less developed parts of the world. Unlike traditional industrial practices, where pollution is closely tied to production and visible to many end-users, the Internet appears to its users as costless and without a physical impact. Already some companies are changing their practices, especially those with major data centers such as Google. Certainly these issues, including a discussion of distributional impacts of climate change, will become a significant concern when discussing the future of the Internet.

* Another significant issue that could receive more attention in future iterations of this section or perhaps included as its own discussion revolves around cyberharassment and the treatment of certain groups on the Internet. One reading was included in our iteration and more are included below. This is a growth area for cyberlaw scholars and new lawsuits continue to shape this area of law.

=== 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)]

===For future iterations===

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271900, Danielle Citron, Cyber Civil Rights, 89 Bos. U. L. Rev. 61 (2009)]
* [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/online_symposiu.html, Concurring Opinions Online Symposium on Cyber Civil Rights] (this is merely the launch page, there are over two dozen high-quality posts and responses published)
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1374533. Mary Anne Franks, Unwilling Avatars: Sexual Harassment in Cyberspace, forthcoming]
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/barnes-v-yahoo-section-230-does-not-insulate-online-service-provider-from-contractual-liab, Barnes v. Yahoo discussion]

== 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

2009-05-24T03:51:18Z

Megerman: /* For future iterations */

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.

* One further issues that could be discussed include both the environmental impact of Internet and related technologies and how these concerns may be overlooked as they go unseen from the user of a computer and the impact is most strongly felt in less developed parts of the world. Unlike traditional industrial practices, where pollution is closely tied to production and visible to many end-users, the Internet appears to its users as costless and without a physical impact. Already some companies are changing their practices, especially those with major data centers such as Google. Certainly these issues, including a discussion of distributional impacts of climate change, will become a significant concern when discussing the future of the Internet.

* Another significant issue that could receive more attention in future iterations of this section or perhaps included as its own discussion revolves around cyberharassment and the treatment of certain groups on the Internet. One reading was included in our iteration and more are included below. This is a growth area for cyberlaw scholars and new lawsuits continue to shape this area of law.

=== 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

2009-05-15T18:12:17Z

Megerman: /* Summary of Results */

'''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]
* (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?

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

2009-03-02T17:23:33Z

Megerman: /* Tools and Examples */

'''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.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.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-23T06:40:21Z

Megerman: /* = Summary of Results */

'''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]
* (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 ==

In short, there were results. This will be updated soon.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-23T06:40:06Z

Megerman:

'''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]
* (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 ==

In short, there were results. This will be updated soon.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-23T06:39:40Z

Megerman:

'''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]
* (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 ===

In short, there were results. This will be updated soon.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-16T18:19:11Z

Megerman: /* Readings */

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-16T18:18:41Z

Megerman: /* 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]
* (optional due to late upload) [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/Media: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.

File:Bans.pdf

2009-02-16T18:17:09Z

Megerman: uploaded a new version of "Image: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).

File:Bans.pdf

2009-02-16T18:16:46Z

Megerman: Lauren Bans, "Same Shit, Different World: Second Life may be an online utopia, but its social politics seem awfully familiar" 39 Bitch 56 (2008).

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

2009-02-09T21:44:59Z

Megerman: /* Class Participation */

'''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

2009-02-09T21:44:37Z

Megerman: /* Class Participation */

'''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-facecommunication, 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

2009-02-09T21:44:14Z

Megerman: /* Class Participation */

'''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 direct 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

2009-02-09T08:18:54Z

Megerman: /* 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.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-09T08:17:03Z

Megerman: /* Discussion/Case Study (remainder) */

'''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 how 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.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-09T08:06:38Z

Megerman: /* 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 how 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?

* 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.

Talk:The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-02T22:15:02Z

Megerman: I moved this discussion here to streamline the page for class

=== 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)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2009-02-02T22:14:29Z

Megerman: /* Working Framing */

'''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 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.

=== 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

2009-01-19T18:22:57Z

Megerman: /* Invited Guests */

'''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.

=== 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

2009-01-19T18:22:05Z

Megerman: /* 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.

=== Invited Guests ===

* 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.
* [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

2009-01-19T18:18:04Z

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

'''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 ===

* [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

2009-01-19T18:14:14Z

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

'''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.]
* 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).

=== 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

2009-01-19T18:13:37Z

Megerman:

'''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)

== 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

2008-12-20T06:43:28Z

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

'''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.
* 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)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-20T06:41:41Z

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

'''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.
* 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?

=== 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)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-20T06:28:50Z

Megerman: /* Title */

'''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.
* 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.]

=== 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?

=== 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)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-20T06:27:19Z

Megerman: /* Environmental Concerns */

'''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.
* 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.]

=== 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?

=== 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)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-20T06:26:57Z

Megerman: Forgot to sign, although I might want to disclaim later

'''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.
* 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.]

=== 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?

=== 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)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-20T06:25:41Z

Megerman: /* Environmental Concerns */

'''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.
* 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.]

=== 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?

=== 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.

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-20T06:13:29Z

Megerman: /* Title */

Topics

2008-12-01T18:59:11Z

Megerman: /* The Internet and Societal Inequity */

= Topic Guidance =

* Are you excited about it?
* Does it relate to law (not entirely necessary)
* Does it relate to tech (not entirely necessary)
** To be sure, these are rebuttable presumptions :)

Q: Are there any circumstances in which we can do a team of three?
A: Yes! If I'm doing the math right, there are 12 seminar slots next term, of which we'll be using 11. There are 26 people. So with 2 per session that leaves 4 floaters; there can be 4 of the 11 sessions with 3 instead of 2. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 17:30, 27 November 2008 (EST)

* Wish list of dream people
** Michael Geist
** Eric Schmidt/Larry Page/Sergey Brin

= Topics on JZ's Powerpoint List (Session on 12/1/2008)=

=== Free and Open Source Software ===

How can a dispersed, multilingual collection of coders working for free assemble something as complicated as a web browser, let alone an entire operating system? Open-source projects are famously free-wheeling, but different organizational models and tools have sprung up to solve these obstacles.

What are the forces that drive hackers to contribute to open source projects? What, if anything, can we learn from applying theories of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy gift economies] to open source projects? Should we read Lewis Hyde's [http://southerncrossreview.org/4/schwartz.html The Gift]? (n.b. i may be motivated by my own desire to read the book -- [[dulles]])

* Eric Raymond/OSI ?
* PJ/Groklaw
* Strategies and indemnities (e.g. SCO v. IBM)
* Questioning the foundations of the free software movement (i.e. the "four freedoms")[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#cite_ref-bull6_3-0] -- how much does access to the source code really matter anymore? Are there alternative theories (e.g. "generativity") that better capture the values at stake? Affero License? (Eben Moglen?)
* The organization/groups/cooperation questions: how do free software projects organize and govern themselves, and what broader lessons might be learned from it? (e.g. debian, IETF)

(This marks my initial claim to the topic, though I would be overjoyed to work with others - [[dulles]])

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

=== Philanthropy/Causes/Cooperation via the Internet ===
'''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]'''

When does it work, when does it not? and why?

Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes

People:
* Prof. Yochai Benkler

= Topics, Categorized =
''Now, with categories! See [[Talk:Topics|Talk page]] for more.''
--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 14:23, 29 November 2008 (EST)

This page is for topics that we have not yet scheduled (but potentially should). Please add suggestions to the bottom of this page, and feel free to modify the descriptions for topics already listed.

== Philosophical Approaches to Internet Communications ==

=== Discourse Theory ===
We should do a survey overview of the topic.

[http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1238 A Summary of Discourse Theory]

Whom do we know as a great person -- a visitor? -- on discourse theory?
* Habermas
* Manuel Castells

=== Marxism ===
should we be thinking about the connection between technology and society and question of an infrastructure and a superstructure?

=== Libertarianism ===
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism|Libertarianism]]

=== Network Theory ===
Another frame for thinking?
idea for speaker maybe [[http://www.stanford.edu/group/song/woody_index.html | Walter Powell]].

== The Internet as a Social and Economic Tool Today ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

Intrade, etc.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeSports Tradesports] announced last week that it will [http://www.tradesports.com/ cease operations] at the end of this month. Does fallout from the current economic crisis include regulatory changes that spell doom for online prediction markets? Or is something else going on here? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 11:05, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Could prediction markets transform how we govern ourselves? Robin Hanson proposes [http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf Futarchy]. The idea in brief:

"Democracies often fail to aggregate information, while speculative markets excel at this task. We consider a new form of governance, wherein voters would say what we want, but speculators would say how to get it. Elected representatives would oversee the after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare. Those who recommend policies that regressions suggest will raise GDP should be willing to endorse similar market advice."

* Michael Abramowitz (sp?), book on prediction markets
* Justin Wolfers
* Bo Cowgill, Hal Varian: Google prediction markets

=== Interactive Education ===

Building on the work of MWesch (video here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o) think about innovation in the classroom beyond the blackboard. How can we better interact in the classroom and how can technology help?

* Case studies - what does and doesn't work, e.g. tools to train journalists in E. Africa that may have more amounted to dysfunctional imperialism

=== Unconferences ===

Unconferences represent a form of event-based discourse that seems chaotic but is actually organized around a set of well-codified rules intended to encourage initiative-taking by participants and ensure that the event is truly community-run and ad-hoc. Also known as "[http://www.openspaceworld.com/users_guide.htm Open Space]" events, they take several different forms, including [http://www.barcamp.org/ Barcamps] (which have been expanded to podcamps, etc.)

* Tim O'Reilly, foo camp

=== Deliberative Polling Online ===

In a nutshell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_opinion_poll

Here and in other topics, are we too sanguine about deliberative democracy? If we opt for some of these topics, perhaps we should read Ch. 4-5 of [http://books.google.com/books?id=A543N977rS0C Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy].

Use the internet to get not only participation but also reflection

* Deliberative methods more generally
* Jim Fishkin

=== Collaborative Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Weeler Declaration])

=== Recording Harvard Law School Classes and Posting Them on iTunes U ===

Law schools tend not to post free class recordings on iTunes U. Should HLS take the opportunity to trailblaze? What are the law-school-specific challenges and the legal issues surrounding publishing audio recordings of HLS classes? What are the benefits? What about recording classes just for the benefit of the students (posted, as on religious holidays, solely on enrolled students' MyHLS pages)

=== Path Dependence and Academia ===

This course inadvertently raises a meta question (at least to me): is academia radically path dependent? That is, do "obsolete" disciplines hang around because of tenure, risk-aversion, or more subtle social pressures? And, for parallel reasons, does academia neglect more recently emergent topics? For one perspective on what a different, future academy could be like, do visit Oxford's [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/ Future of Humanity Institute] and see some of the work of its director, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ Nick Bostrom].

We might also want to have a look at Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

: It seems to me (as a casual observer) that one of the problems is predicting what disciplines will generate future advances at what rate (and, necessarily, what constitutes an "advance") in the first place. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 12:54, 1 December 2008 (EST)

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== Changing trends in Consumption & Creation of Music ===

'''Presenters: Joe Fishman & Miriam Weiler (perhaps there is some possibility of collaboration with those working on the Tenenbaum suit?)'''

We are beginning to see more and more choices for where and how to get copyrighted music. Gone are the days when it was either download illegally on programs such as Limewire or pay for them on iTunes. There have been attempts at creating new marketplaces from scratch such as at [http://amiestreet.com Aimee Street], which lowers the cost of discovering new music by setting price according to download popularity. Then there has been [http://grooveshark.com Grooveshark], which charges for downloads from its user-uploaded library but actually gives a cut to the original uploader. And then we find the advertisement-driven revenue model creeping in, such as at [http://www.imeem.com Imeem], the third-most popular social networking site on the Internet as of August (behind only facebook and MySpace).

It's clear that the days of CD browsing at Tower Records are behind us. And while iTunes has been the one primarily filling the vacuum, the proliferation of web-based alternatives is making things interesting. Are any of these models likely to succeed? Are our methods of music consumption likely to have an impact on our methods of music production? And just where does the recording industry fit in to all of it?

:Maybe John Buckman, from Magnatune?

:Not sure how to integrate Fan Culture & Vidding into a broader discussion of changing consumption patterns of music?

=== The Semantic Web ===

What has become of this idea? Are we already there? Is it yet to come? Or has it died along the way? [Rainer]

One potential Semantic Web application is [http://www.freebase.com/ Freebase]. It is primitive right now, far less useful than (the simpler) Wikipedia or even Knol. Perhaps there is someone in the field we could bring in with technical expertise?

:Consider this my e-hum in favor of this topic... [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 12:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)

=== Language Divides/Autotranslation ===

Though it doesn't penetrate to every physical location on Earth (unless you can afford sattelite link-ups), the internet is an exceptionally global medium. With the barriers to access lower than any earlier medium for high-volume international communication, it represents an opportunity for greater international discourse and the deepening of a sense of global society. But unless we can reassemble the Tower of Babel, significant and entrenched divides exist: people simply don't always understand each other's language.

As certain languages become prevalent for international discourse, native users of that language have an advantage in communication. Auto-translation software such as Google Translate, Babelfish, and many others represent an opportunity to flatten this embeded advantage structure that favors people educated where linguae francae are native languages. Moreover, human translation communities such as [http://globalvoicesonline.org Global Voices Online] provide an edited and selected digest of what the editors notice in many languages.

What are the potential bridges for language divides? Which work better and for what? What are the implications of mistranslations by machines? --[[User:G|G]] 12:25, 28 November 2008 (EST)

=== Cloud computing ===

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

Do we really want to store all of our personal documents on Microsoft or Google servers one day? [Rainer]

:Very interested in this. I think Prof. Zittrain's theory of generativity is at the center of this, and Danny O'Brien (the inventer of the term "life hack" and, I'm certain, a ''great'' guest) gave an interesting talk on why we should avoid centralization (e.g., identi.ca rather than Twitter) last summer at Open Tech 2008. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 13:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)

=== IPv6 ===

Why are we so slow with the transition to IPv6? Is this a technical, financial or legal issue?
China is far ahead. How does this change the game? [http://news.cnet.com/China-launches-largest-IPv6-network/2100-1025_3-5506914.html Article] [Rainer]

== Communications Norms , Free Speech and the Internet ==

=== The Rise of Anonymity... ===

"on the internet, nobody knows that you're a dog." Or tall, or 12 years old, or a hairdresser by day, or a lesbian, or in India, or with a harelip, or... but also: now that we can't filter by that by default, what do we filter by? Do we now bias towards good writers - and what of people who communicate best non-verbally?

What legitimate and illegitimate uses for anonymity are available on the internet? When is personal information useful, and when is verification appropriate? Last week's discussion about the different cultures on Wikipedia and Ebay and the use of behavioral enforcement mechanisms (ebay rating system, thumbs up/down-ing other drivers, etc.) reminded me of a panel from my favorite webcomic: http://xkcd.com/325/. As noted in the Properties subtext to the comic, "You can do this one in every 30 times and still have 97% positive feedback." How concerned should we be that people--be they selfish, malicious, or simply lunatics--can exploit such weaknesses in systems for building online reputations? If this is a real problem, how can we change current systems or create new ones to better protect users? And what are the trade-offs that come with better protection? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 11:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Also, what are the political and social implications of anonymitiy in countries with less free expression than the United States. In the Chinese example, we might speculate that with the internet more discourse is going on, in contexts ranging from political debates to hobby and commercial communities, but people may be motivated to try to remain anonymous. "Real name" requirements in some countries may challenge this, but circumvention methods exist. Then, how many people use circumvention methods, and how many users use them in a way that truly maintains anonymity? What does it mean that civic discourse might explode, but without real names attached? --[[User:G|G]] 11:58, 28 November 2008 (EST)

To what extent does our received wisdom on anonymity reflect previous modes of technological development? With the advent of data mining, can an author truly be anonymous by leaving his/her name out, if that information can be ascertained quickly? Did old-style pamphletting allow for better anonymity? How good are names at identifying something that is person-like? Does the repeated use of a pseudonym change anything? Could anyone in revolutionary times write under the name Publius? Can anyone do that on wikipedia? Does the design of the internet allow/encourage anonymous postings or have we been lulled into a false sense of security by programs like [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]? How do avatars and pseudonyms change these discussions? Is this a question of identity or accountability or neither? What does it mean to sue a username? Does the ability to remain unnammed expand the range of discourse or have a chilling effect of its own? Is the act of remaining unnammed ultimately a collective move, as in the case of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) Anonymous], or an inherently individuating move? Would granting users the right to remain pseudononymous create a tragedy of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticommons anticommons], effectively rendering all userboards unusable? Does anonymity allow users to transcend bigotry or does it reinforce it? --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 09:00, 29 November 2008 (EST)

=== ... or the Fall of Privacy? ===

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''' (it looks like there are at least a few presentations' worth of topics under this heading)

Despite the superficial anonymity provided by Internet communications, tracing a user of communications technologies has become ever-easier for the backbone provider, government actor, communications tool purveyor, and even the dedicated outside observer. Moreover, many members of the generation raised alongside the Internet spurn the option to use superficial anonymization altogether, posting photos and intimate personal details on social networking sites and rejecting pseudonymization on message boards. How will norms of [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/ privacy] change for the coming Internet generation? How are they already changing?

[http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23465941_ITM Alan Westin proposed] four states of privacy: ''Anonymity'' (freedom from identification and surveillance in public places and performing public acts), ''Solitude'' (freedom from observation from others), ''Reserve'' (freedom from disclosure of personal information to others), and ''Intimacy'' (freedom from surveillance in a group, in order to allow for free and open personal relationships).

''Anonymity'': As [[User:Megerman|Megerman]] asks in the topic above, has the average citizen lost the ability to pamphlet anonymously with the movement of the public discourse online? What about anonymous protest? Does the fact that the vast majority of participants in online discussion do not have the tools to penetrate superficial anonymity more than make up for the ability of a few dedicated actors to do so (i.e. is the new anonymity "better" than the old)?

''Solitude'': Are reading habits now an open secret, with the URLs of favorite webpages subject to disclosure upon request under the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002703----000-.html Stored Communications Act]? What about citizens' commercial activity online? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia Stanley v. Georgia] strongly suggested that what a person did in the privacy of her own home was her own business as long as others were not harmed. Is this no longer true w/r/t commercial actors such as internet service providers? The government? Requests of commercial actors made by the government?

''Reserve'': What kind of right of reserve should we expect in our commercial transactional records? Health care records? Credit information? Should we rely on general laws like [http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacysummary.pdf HIPAA] to navigate these issues? Terms of Service and other one-on-one negotiations via contract law? Can social and commercial norms do this work in place of law?

''Intimacy'': As communications technologies make conversation over greater distances with fewer obstacles possible, is there a corresponding tradeoff in the loss of intimacy when using such technologies? Is it simply to be expected that email and message-board gatherings will not be free from surveillance? Is it even technologically feasible to make them so? As people rely more on such innovations and less on face-to-face meetings to stay in touch with friends and family, or to engage in political organization and political discourse, will certain bonds of intimacy be loosened or severed?

Is there an inexorable push toward a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society Transparent Society]? Is that a good thing? Is it both [http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/03/securitymatters_0306 undesirable] and [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=_bodvczXUIsC&dq=solove+digital+person&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=wnpy3t0qKS&sig=IivUDdJKJ_bmaxDN3R5Ccdg37Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP9,M1 avoidable]? Or is this all overblown hype?
--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 15:17, 29 November 2008 (EST)

=== Sources ===

Where does the information for/during discussions come from? Interfaces/ease-of-access/digestibility of information affects how quickly it can get injected into conversations? (examples: hitting wikipedia in the middle of a dinner discussion, calling an expert friend or hitting another IRC channel to answer a quick question, etc). How does this affect how people prepare for conversations? (If you can easily look up notes during the meeting, why take them down beforehand?) Trying to apply some thoughts about [http://blog.melchua.com/2006/03/31/on-the-future-of-libraries-2/ info access in libraries] to this.

Also, what if any tools exist to help people archive previous states of dynamic sites such as BBSs and news pages? In other words, after information comes into discussions, how can we see what happened after the fact? --[[User:G|G]] 12:01, 28 November 2008 (EST)

=== Identity and Expertise ===

How are participants in an internet dialog identified and credentialed? What gives weight to a participants' arguments - or phrased another way, what type of participants and arguments have weight, and what determines this for each discussion, participant, and discussion point?

=== The Future of News ===

== Presenters: Dharmishta Rood, Jon Fildes ==

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]. 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 is [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 papers] are even 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, the web offers these organisations a huge opportunity. Already, groups such as [http://spot.us/ spot.us] and [http://www.propublica.org/ Pro Publica] are experimenting with new business models. 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. Many are using the web to reach out to audiences and connect with them in new ways.

But, are they doing enough? Will experiments like this be enough to save news organisations? Does it matter if they disappear? 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”?

The Communication Initiative is an organization in this domain with a compelling problem that they'd like advice on solving, and they're very enthusiastic and willing to work with the class. They're focused on the use and support of communication for economic and social development (http://www.comminit.com) with a large and varied network (over 70,000 total) of members all over the world. Their question: given the challenges the face (enumerated more in the details section), how do we guide and engage our network more through our interactive online processes instead of through email?" More information available at [[The Communication Initiative]] (they wrote up a problem statement for us!) - is this something people would be interested in taking on? I would be... [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 21:21, 30 November 2008 (EST)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

Minors have long been recognized to not have free speech rights that are co-extensive with adults. But with the Internet, how do we define those rights? And what, if any, regulation should the government enact to protect minors on the Internet, while also respecting their rights?

There are two traditional categories where minors' free speech rights have been restricted. The first is with respect to pornography, the second with respect to the school environment. These two areas raise different concerns.

===== Pornography =====

Re: Pornography: I think we might think of Porn on the net not only through the free speech/pedophilia topics. Pornography is one of the main uses of the net, whether we like it or not, and it seems that a great part of the architecture and governance of the web today must have been influenced by that fact. It could be interesting to think about this connection as a structural idea.
--[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]

The Government has on several occasions attempted to place restrictions on Internet access with the intention of preventing minors from viewing pornography. Nobody questions the Government's legitimate interest in restricting pornography, however the Government has run into substantial legal problems with most legislation it has enacted - primarily because the statutes were found to curtail the free speech rights of adults.

Issues:
*Should the Government attempt regulation in this field at all?
** Does self regulation work?
** Is there any way to enact legislation to protect minors without limiting protected adult access?
*What would be defined as the community?
** Is there any way to develop a "community standard" where the Internet is inherently national/global?
*Do adults' rights to view porn mean that the Government must allow them to do so should it create free public access to the Internet?
*Privacy
** If, as currently proposed, a method is developed to determine whether an Internet user is a minor, how do we protect the privacy of the users?
** Do opt-in/opt-out policies go against our rights to privacy?

* The above discussion confuses obscenity with pornography. Obscenity law conveys a form of moral condemnation from the position of the status quo. Pornography law, if it ever existed, attempted a political analysis of equality principles. There are few things that will guarantee a messageboard clusterfuck like a discussion of pornography and heaven forbid you ever suggest that someone might one day take somone's porn away. One of the reasons for this situation is that the views and voices of the pornography-skeptical left have been almost completely drowned out and the vast majority of pornography viewers think that only a puritanical right opposes the idea (and thus each pornographic image consumed becomes a blow against Pat Robertson on behalf of liberty). If you believe that pornography involves serious concerns of civil rights then it's unclear how the internet or modern modes of transmission ultimately changes much other than providing easier access to rights violations. A radical position might exhort an abandonment of a commitment to equality in the face of overwhelming firepower, but that's not one that many would adopt. That said, it's pretty clear you're talking about obscenity, given the reference to community standards and so on. Keeping these two issues analytically separate is always the second thing to go in these discussions (once we've silenced certain voices). --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 17:30, 30 November 2008 (EST)

**I can see how the confusion about pornography and obscenity can arise, but just to be clear, its the regulation of pornography with respect to minors that is raising the issue - not pornography in general. From my limited knowledge of free speech laws, it seems pretty clear that regulation of access to porn by minors is pretty much established. As to the "community standards" this in fact has been raised with respect to porn by the FCC. Currently, there is a proposal to auction spectrum to allow free broadband access to the Internet, provided that it is "porn free." The rationale given is that this is to protect minors, and what porn would be filtered would be based on community standards. See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services, WT Docket Nos. 07-195 and 05-356, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-158 (rel. June 20, 2008). It explicitly states that the provider of the free Internet would need to have a filter that "filters or blocks images and text that constitute obscenity or pornography and, in context, as measured by contemporary community standards and existing law, any images or text that otherwise would be harmful to teens and adolescents. For purposes of this rule, teens and adolescents are children 5 through 17 years of age[.]" Id. (emphasis added). -- [[User:Bepa|Bepa]] 18:30, 30 November 2008 (EST)

***The rabbit gets put in the hat when you say "regulation of pornography with respect to minors." We regulate child pornography (that is, pornography involving minors) and the access to obscene materials by minors. Since [http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hudnut.html Hudnut] this country has not regulated pornography that does not involve children. [http://ifea.net/cipa.pdf CIPA] and other laws regulate the ability of children to access obscene material on the Internet, but does not regulate pornography that does not involve children. Of course, this point is often lost even by somewhat credible observers and it certainly seems a little beyond Rehnquist in [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZO.html United States V. American Library Assn., Inc.]. As far as the proposed FCC rules, my guess is that the Court would find them to be unconstitutional insofar that they prohibited the dissemination of pornography, but they'd be fine if they were just limited to obscenity. Intuitively, this tracks the larger discussion. Those who seek to protect children from obscenity are concerned about issues of morality and sin, not equality and justice. The community standards issue only applies to obscenity and for these reasons. I'm less concerned with the substance of this actual debate (which may be beyond the scope of this class) than keeping the terms straight (and thereby unsilencing a valid viewpoint in these discussions). --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 19:13, 30 November 2008 (EST)

===== Schools =====

Courts have recognized that the minors do not have rights to engage in speech that has a substantial impact on the school setting, or runs against pedagogical interests. For example, displaying a sign that questionably promotes drug use while at a school sponsored event is not protected speech. Minors are also most likely prevented from passing around a flier encouraging students to riot if they pass that flier around at school. But what if they pass the message as a digital flier? Perhaps the students create a group on Facebook encouraging students to simultaneously drop their pencils at 11:30 am, and again every 5 minutes for the rest of the day. Is that speech protected if all the activity takes place from the home?

Issues:

*What type of activity should be regulated, if at all?
** Should Internet activity that takes place primarily at home, but creates a disruption at school, be protected?
*** What if the disruption at school is substantial? Not substantial?
*** What if the speech is only tangentially related to the school setting, but still creates some impact there?
*How do we balance the legitimate pedagogical needs of minors to have access to the Internet with the need to create an environment where students can learn, free from distraction?

==== Political Speech and Political Change====

===== Meta-Public Policy =====

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

See, e.g., Larry Lessig's Change Congress movement: http://change-congress.org/about/. Being Larry Lessig, the whole thing is tech-friendly.

===== Online Activism =====

Of course there are a lot of custom-built tools for mobilizing people online to get things done in the real world. On the other hand, what about more general tools? We've all been invited, via Facebook, to join groups and attend events (the Obama campaign certainly made good use of this); is there a generalizable model here?

Facebook groups dedicated to particular causes remind me of the online petitions that began circulating widely via email about ten years ago: their effectiveness in accomplishing real world change--and even their visibility to individuals capable of affecting the desired changes--are dubious. Is the real purpose of these movements simply to make participants ''feel'' like they are being active and involved? What percentage of those who signed email petitions in the 1990s were aware that their signatures were unverifiable and that the widely-distributed emails were unlikely to be collated and submitted to an official authority? What expectations do participants in facebook group causes have for their involvement and its consequences? The facebook group causes are certainly more centralized and visible than the old email petitions, and they provide a better tool for identifying and communicating with supporters in order to mobilize them in an organized fashion. How often is such mobilization attempted, and with what degree of success? As a tool of online activism, is facebook a step forward from chain emails, is it a step in a different direction, or does it just serve the same old functions but in newer packaging? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 08:26, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe we can invite some of the leaders of the various social networking sites or Jascha Franklin-Hodge, who was an architect of the Obama campaign's use of social technology.

Might also be worth considering SMS applications that interface with the internet in this context especially since cell phones will presumably be the nexus of tech activism in the developing world. See FrontlineSMS or Ushahidi, a web crisis mapping project that let any user with a cell phone text in reports of violence in post-election Kenya as a way to geographically report real-time citizen reporting. (ELANA)

===== Meta-Pundit =====

''Conor Kennedy''

'''PREMISE'''

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, web-only advertisements helped to shape the talking points of media personalities like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Matthews Chris Matthews] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann Keith Olbermann], [http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/ Greta Van Susteren], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Scarborough Joe Scarborough], and sometimes even individuals who try to operate "above the fray" of punditry like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart Jon Stewart], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Leno Jay Leno], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Letterman David Letterman] (See [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/09/web_only_campaign_advertisements_flood_presidential_race/ "Web-only campaign advertisements flood presidential race"] "In a study released last summer....the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found most Americans heard about the most famous viral videos because they saw them replayed on TV").

Because a large and increasing number of Americans get their news from media personalities rather than from traditional broadcast or print media sources, these individuals have significant power to shape the national political discussion. Still, beyond campaigns' web-only ads, there hasn't ''yet'' been a concerted effort to use the Internet to directly influence these personalities and their television shows.

'''PROPOSAL'''

This void can be filled by a website that publishes a rating system and gauges/grades each of these media personalities (over multiple periods of time: daily [i.e., per episode], monthly, etc.) with a variety of qualitative metrics.

Ideally, such metrics would focus on process rather than substance (e.g., % of material that avoids explicit mention of either party's talking-points-of-the-day; % of in-show discussion that is active, fair dialogue with guests of opposing perspectives). Some metrics would be determined by the site's designers while others would be generated and selected (i.e., voted on) by the site's users. A team of qualitative analysts would code each media personality's episodes for (1) the site designers' metrics and (2) any given metric a critical mass the website's users select, and publish the results daily.

This website would be most influential as a source for audience feedback beyond bare headcounts (i.e., network viewer ratings). For some media personalities, that feedback will act as a friendly nudge that helps them improve their shows. For others, the ultimate message might sound more like [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8 Jon Stewart on Crossfire].

'''QUESTIONS (each followed by potential answers)'''

*(1) How should this kind of a site be funded, and by whom?
**Non-partisan journalism NGOs through a project grant
**The Berkman Center (see "Donations" link in navigation pane in left frame)
*(2) What kind of knowledge workers would the daily operations require?
**College research assistants as coders
*(3) What kind of goals should such a website pursue?
**Active dialogue
**More informed discussion
**Sophistication of television personalities
**Honesty
**Bipartisanship
**Dedication to truth
**Fighting the political class's elitism
**Fighting prejudices/smears
**Deconstructing euphemistic language/political correctness
**Strengthening/Weakening political parties' control of the national political dialogue
**Expansion of the national political dialogue to include new and unique perspectives
*(4) How else could a pundit-centric website serve to channel the widespread complaints of "Media Bias" into a polished online platform?
**Hall of Shame for self-proclaimed (one-time guest) "Analysts" and "Experts" who actually have no rightful claim to either title.
**Sponsor and/or Host Op-Eds, Blogs, Vlogs, [http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Is-Religion-Built-Upon-Lies.aspx?p=1 "Blogologues"], and [http://bloggingheads.tv/ "Diavlogs"] by premier Media/Journalism academics.
**Work to immediately uncover the ''original'' sources of stories in order (1) to get a sense of who is already influencing media personalities (and their writers) and (2) to push back against rushed vetting of unsubstantiated stories (a la [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html Martin Eisenstadt])
**Highlight stories/angles the traditional anchors are broadcasting that these hosts are ignoring/purposely passing on.
*(5) How much embedded footage of ''actual shows'' can such a website legally display under Fair Use?
**A good place to start looking is [http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Talking Points Memo's "The Day in 100 Seconds" Vidcast Series]
--[[User:CKennedy|CKennedy]] 01:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:There was a group at the University of Michigan looking at a similar issue a couple years ago... if you'd like, I can try to look them up. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 13:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

===== The First USA CTO =====

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

President-elect Obama's promise to appoint the first USA CTO has turned many heads, and discussions on what the (as of yet unappointed) CTO should do have started up, notably at http://obamacto.org/. Several other related links not purely focused on "US CTO" issues:

* http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/32788/presidential_transition_2_0_how_to_use_new_social_media
* http://www.govloop.com/

===== Deliberation Day =====

The paper on the study, and where similar effects re: citizen participation may be seen.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

How has new media affected traditional communications and media industries and challenged traditional law? How do we deal with the fact that there is little legal infrastructure that takes into account today's new media environments? Do we apply old laws to new technologies, or do we create new regulations? How can we create sound policy that aligns with both traditional legal and moral aspirations while according with today's technological realities?

This topic will aim to explore these general questions through the specific example of Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, a federal file-sharing case the three of us are working on with Professor Charles Nesson, co-founder of the Berkman Center.

Speaker Ideas: Google Telecom Lawyer Rick Whitt or Google Antitrust lawyer Dana Wagner.

'''Images online'''

Fanvids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songvid

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==
'''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]'''
=== 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?

*A solutions-focused question here might be: what tools might encourage a more egalitarian internet, both nationally and internationally? How can online applications be designed to encourage social equality? (Berkman Fellow [http://eszter.com Eszter Hargittai] has worked on some related questions, focusing on research about how people actually use the internet.) --[[User:G|G]] 12:12, 28 November 2008 (EST)

=== One Laptop Per Child ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

:I think I added this topic header, but it's just something that interests me; I'm not sure what, if any, ''frontier'' issue we could take up with them. I'm really interested in this kind of online legal services application, though I wonder if Chilling Effects itself has stabilized as an institution. Is there another group doing peer-powered legal work, or can anyone think of an interesting problem to tackle? [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 12:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

Much like open-source software, the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world. How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way. This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though. With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

We have come to rely on the Internet for almost every aspect of our lives. If the Internet somehow suddenly went "down" (through either a cyberattack or physical attack on key backbone pieces of infrastructure), the result would likely be calamity, as well as hordes of people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Can we even imagine what the world would look like the morning after such an attack if it was successful? Are we wrong to rely so heavily on a single tool whose detailed technical inner workings so few people truly understand? Are we setting ourselves up to be ruined when someone compromises this tool? What about the tradeoffs between keeping the Net free+open vs. regulation to ensure that it retains its functional integrity in the face of attack?

We can invite Dan Kaminsky, who recently discovered a flaw in the inner-workings of the Net that could have caused some serious damage. See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/technology/09flaw.html?hp
(or we could invite will smith, who defeated the aliens in independence day with the help of cyber-attack).

* I vote Will Smith. Unless everyone wants to get into the desirability of a DNS nonce of sufficient bitlength, in which case... no, still Will Smith. That guy's an elliptic curve cryptography fiend. However, if we do want to talk about design issues in the internet, and the failure of the marketplace to handle externalities created by poor software design, leading to the perpetual crisis of bugginess, we could do worse than to invite [http://cr.yp.to/djb.html Daniel Bernstein]. Plus, as an added bonus, he saw the issues that gave rise to the Kaminsky bug coming down the pike [http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html a long] [http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/forgery.html time ago]. --[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]]

=== Internet as International Conflict Zone ===

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

In light of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_on_Estonia_2007 recent events in Estonia], have we finally reached the long-predicted era of cyberwarfare? Is cyber-espionage a counterintelligence problem or something more? ([http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20080531_6948.php This article from the National Journal] talks bluntly about perceived threats, although is perhaps a little too willing to attribute causation of certain events to Chinese actors on dubious evidence)

=== Internet as an Extension of National Infrastructure ===

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

It is easy to define the borders of the nation in realspace (ports, airports, land crossings), and the tradeoffs between private propertyholders' rights and national security interests (making those tradeoffs? Not always so easy). But what are the national borders in cyberspace? Given the dangers described in the two topics above, what kind of role, if any, should national government play in monitoring and regulating major backbone communications links? What about the networks of semi-public industries such as utilities? Private corporations that store government secrets? Financial systems? Other types of privately owned networks?

--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 23:54, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Topics

2008-12-01T00:13:59Z

Megerman: /* Pornography */

= Topic Guidance =

* Are you excited about it?
* Does it relate to law (not entirely necessary)
* Does it relate to tech (not entirely necessary)
** To be sure, these are rebuttable presumptions :)

Q: Are there any circumstances in which we can do a team of three?
A: Yes! If I'm doing the math right, there are 12 seminar slots next term, of which we'll be using 11. There are 26 people. So with 2 per session that leaves 4 floaters; there can be 4 of the 11 sessions with 3 instead of 2. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 17:30, 27 November 2008 (EST)

= Topics, Categorized =
''Now, with categories! See [[Talk:Topics|Talk page]] for more.''
--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 14:23, 29 November 2008 (EST)

This page is for topics that we have not yet scheduled (but potentially should). Please add suggestions to the bottom of this page, and feel free to modify the descriptions for topics already listed.

== Philosophical Approaches to Internet Communications ==

=== Discourse Theory ===
We should do a survey overview of the topic.

[http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1238 A Summary of Discourse Theory]

=== Discursive Tools and Practices ===

We should do a survey overview of the topic!

== The Internet as a Social and Economic Tool Today ==

=== Prediction Markets ===

Intrade, etc.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeSports Tradesports] announced last week that it will [http://www.tradesports.com/ cease operations] at the end of this month. Does fallout from the current economic crisis include regulatory changes that spell doom for online prediction markets? Or is something else going on here? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 11:05, 26 November 2008 (EST)

=== Interactive Education ===

Building on the work of MWesch (video here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o) think about innovation in the classroom beyond the blackboard. How can we better interact in the classroom and how can technology help?

=== Unconferences ===

Unconferences represent a form of event-based discourse that seems chaotic but is actually organized around a set of well-codified rules intended to encourage initiative-taking by participants and ensure that the event is truly community-run and ad-hoc. Also known as "[http://www.openspaceworld.com/users_guide.htm Open Space]" events, they take several different forms, including [http://www.barcamp.org/ Barcamps] (which have been expanded to podcamps, etc.)

=== Open Source Software ===

How can a dispersed, multilingual collection of coders working for free assemble something as complicated as a web browser, let alone an entire operating system? Open-source projects are famously free-wheeling, but different organizational models and tools have sprung up to solve these obstacles.

=== Deliberative Polling Online ===

In a nutshell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_opinion_poll

=== Collaborative Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Weeler Declaration])

=== Recording Harvard Law School Classes and Posting Them on iTunes U ===

Law schools tend not to post free class recordings on iTunes U. Should HLS take the opportunity to trailblaze? What are the law-school-specific challenges and the legal issues surrounding publishing audio recordings of HLS classes? What are the benefits? What about recording classes just for the benefit of the students (posted, as on religious holidays, solely on enrolled students' MyHLS pages)

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Semantic Web ===

What has become of this idea? Are we already there? Is it yet to come? Or has it died along the way? [Rainer]

=== Language Divides/Autotranslation ===

Though it doesn't penetrate to every physical location on Earth (unless you can afford sattelite link-ups), the internet is an exceptionally global medium. With the barriers to access lower than any earlier medium for high-volume international communication, it represents an opportunity for greater international discourse and the deepening of a sense of global society. But unless we can reassemble the Tower of Babel, significant and entrenched divides exist: people simply don't always understand each other's language.

As certain languages become prevalent for international discourse, native users of that language have an advantage in communication. Auto-translation software such as Google Translate, Babelfish, and many others represent an opportunity to flatten this embeded advantage structure that favors people educated where linguae francae are native languages. Moreover, human translation communities such as [http://globalvoicesonline.org Global Voices Online] provide an edited and selected digest of what the editors notice in many languages.

What are the potential bridges for language divides? Which work better and for what? What are the implications of mistranslations by machines? --[[User:G|G]] 12:25, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== Communications Norms and the Internet ==

=== The Rise of Anonymity... ===

"on the internet, nobody knows that you're a dog." Or tall, or 12 years old, or a hairdresser by day, or a lesbian, or in India, or with a harelip, or... but also: now that we can't filter by that by default, what do we filter by? Do we now bias towards good writers - and what of people who communicate best non-verbally?

What legitimate and illegitimate uses for anonymity are available on the internet? When is personal information useful, and when is verification appropriate? Last week's discussion about the different cultures on Wikipedia and Ebay and the use of behavioral enforcement mechanisms (ebay rating system, thumbs up/down-ing other drivers, etc.) reminded me of a panel from my favorite webcomic: http://xkcd.com/325/. As noted in the Properties subtext to the comic, "You can do this one in every 30 times and still have 97% positive feedback." How concerned should we be that people--be they selfish, malicious, or simply lunatics--can exploit such weaknesses in systems for building online reputations? If this is a real problem, how can we change current systems or create new ones to better protect users? And what are the trade-offs that come with better protection? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 11:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Also, what are the political and social implications of anonymitiy in countries with less free expression than the United States. In the Chinese example, we might speculate that with the internet more discourse is going on, in contexts ranging from political debates to hobby and commercial communities, but people may be motivated to try to remain anonymous. "Real name" requirements in some countries may challenge this, but circumvention methods exist. Then, how many people use circumvention methods, and how many users use them in a way that truly maintains anonymity? What does it mean that civic discourse might explode, but without real names attached? --[[User:G|G]] 11:58, 28 November 2008 (EST)

To what extent does our received wisdom on anonymity reflect previous modes of technological development? With the advent of data mining, can an author truly be anonymous by leaving his/her name out, if that information can be ascertained quickly? Did old-style pamphletting allow for better anonymity? How good are names at identifying something that is person-like? Does the repeated use of a pseudonym change anything? Could anyone in revolutionary times write under the name Publius? Can anyone do that on wikipedia? Does the design of the internet allow/encourage anonymous postings or have we been lulled into a false sense of security by programs like [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]? How do avatars and pseudonyms change these discussions? Is this a question of identity or accountability or neither? What does it mean to sue a username? Does the ability to remain unnammed expand the range of discourse or have a chilling effect of its own? Is the act of remaining unnammed ultimately a collective move, as in the case of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) Anonymous], or an inherently individuating move? Would granting users the right to remain pseudononymous create a tragedy of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticommons anticommons], effectively rendering all userboards unusable? Does anonymity allow users to transcend bigotry or does it reinforce it? --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 09:00, 29 November 2008 (EST)

=== ... or the Fall of Privacy? ===

Despite the superficial anonymity provided by Internet communications, tracing a user of communications technologies has become ever-easier for the backbone provider, government actor, communications tool purveyor, and even the dedicated outside observer. Moreover, many members of the generation raised alongside the Internet spurn the option to use superficial anonymization altogether, posting photos and intimate personal details on social networking sites and rejecting pseudonymization on message boards. How will norms of [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/ privacy] change for the coming Internet generation? How are they already changing?

[http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23465941_ITM Alan Westin proposed] four states of privacy: ''Anonymity'' (freedom from identification and surveillance in public places and performing public acts), ''Solitude'' (freedom from observation from others), ''Reserve'' (freedom from disclosure of personal information to others), and ''Intimacy'' (freedom from surveillance in a group, in order to allow for free and open personal relationships).

''Anonymity'': As [[User:Megerman|Megerman]] asks in the topic above, has the average citizen lost the ability to pamphlet anonymously with the movement of the public discourse online? What about anonymous protest? Does the fact that the vast majority of participants in online discussion do not have the tools to penetrate superficial anonymity more than make up for the ability of a few dedicated actors to do so (i.e. is the new anonymity "better" than the old)?

''Solitude'': Are reading habits now an open secret, with the URLs of favorite webpages subject to disclosure upon request under the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002703----000-.html Stored Communications Act]? What about citizens' commercial activity online? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia Stanley v. Georgia] strongly suggested that what a person did in the privacy of her own home was her own business as long as others were not harmed. Is this no longer true w/r/t commercial actors such as internet service providers? The government? Requests of commercial actors made by the government?

''Reserve'': What kind of right of reserve should we expect in our commercial transactional records? Health care records? Credit information? Should we rely on general laws like [http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacysummary.pdf HIPAA] to navigate these issues? Terms of Service and other one-on-one negotiations via contract law? Can social and commercial norms do this work in place of law?

''Intimacy'': As communications technologies make conversation over greater distances with fewer obstacles possible, is there a corresponding tradeoff in the loss of intimacy when using such technologies? Is it simply to be expected that email and message-board gatherings will not be free from surveillance? Is it even technologically feasible to make them so? As people rely more on such innovations and less on face-to-face meetings to stay in touch with friends and family, or to engage in political organization and political discourse, will certain bonds of intimacy be loosened or severed?

Is there an inexorable push toward a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society Transparent Society]? Is that a good thing? Is it both [http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/03/securitymatters_0306 undesirable] and [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=_bodvczXUIsC&dq=solove+digital+person&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=wnpy3t0qKS&sig=IivUDdJKJ_bmaxDN3R5Ccdg37Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP9,M1 avoidable]? Or is this all overblown hype?
--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 15:17, 29 November 2008 (EST)

=== Sources ===

Where does the information for/during discussions come from? Interfaces/ease-of-access/digestibility of information affects how quickly it can get injected into conversations? (examples: hitting wikipedia in the middle of a dinner discussion, calling an expert friend or hitting another IRC channel to answer a quick question, etc). How does this affect how people prepare for conversations? (If you can easily look up notes during the meeting, why take them down beforehand?) Trying to apply some thoughts about [http://blog.melchua.com/2006/03/31/on-the-future-of-libraries-2/ info access in libraries] to this.

Also, what if any tools exist to help people archive previous states of dynamic sites such as BBSs and news pages? In other words, after information comes into discussions, how can we see what happened after the fact? --[[User:G|G]] 12:01, 28 November 2008 (EST)

=== Identity and Expertise ===

How are participants in an internet dialog identified and credentialed? What gives weight to a participants' arguments - or phrased another way, what type of participants and arguments have weight, and what determines this for each discussion, participant, and discussion point?

=== The Future of News ===

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]. 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 is [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 papers] are even 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, the web offers these organisations a huge opportunity. Already, groups such as [http://spot.us/ spot.us] and [http://www.propublica.org/ Pro Publica] are experimenting with new business models. 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. Many are using the web to reach out to audiences and connect with them in new ways.

But, are they doing enough? Will experiments like this be enough to save news organisations? Does it matter if they disappear? 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”?

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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?

=== Internet and Power ===

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?

*A solutions-focused question here might be: what tools might encourage a more egalitarian internet, both nationally and internationally? How can online applications be designed to encourage social equality? (Berkman Fellow [http://eszter.com Eszter Hargittai] has worked on some related questions, focusing on research about how people actually use the internet.) --[[User:G|G]] 12:12, 28 November 2008 (EST)

=== One Laptop Per Child ===

=== 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)

== The Internet, Political Speech, and Political Change ==

=== Meta-Public Policy ===

See, e.g., Larry Lessig's Change Congress movement: http://change-congress.org/about/. Being Larry Lessig, the whole thing is tech-friendly.

=== Online Activism ===

Of course there are a lot of custom-built tools for mobilizing people online to get things done in the real world. On the other hand, what about more general tools? We've all been invited, via Facebook, to join groups and attend events (the Obama campaign certainly made good use of this); is there a generalizable model here?

Facebook groups dedicated to particular causes remind me of the online petitions that began circulating widely via email about ten years ago: their effectiveness in accomplishing real world change--and even their visibility to individuals capable of affecting the desired changes--are dubious. Is the real purpose of these movements simply to make participants ''feel'' like they are being active and involved? What percentage of those who signed email petitions in the 1990s were aware that their signatures were unverifiable and that the widely-distributed emails were unlikely to be collated and submitted to an official authority? What expectations do participants in facebook group causes have for their involvement and its consequences? The facebook group causes are certainly more centralized and visible than the old email petitions, and they provide a better tool for identifying and communicating with supporters in order to mobilize them in an organized fashion. How often is such mobilization attempted, and with what degree of success? As a tool of online activism, is facebook a step forward from chain emails, is it a step in a different direction, or does it just serve the same old functions but in newer packaging? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 08:26, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe we can invite some of the leaders of the various social networking sites or Jascha Franklin-Hodge, who was an architect of the Obama campaign's use of social technology.

=== Meta-Pundit ===

''Conor Kennedy''

'''PREMISE'''

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, web-only advertisements helped to shape the talking points of media personalities like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Matthews Chris Matthews] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann Keith Olbermann], [http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/ Greta Van Susteren], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Scarborough Joe Scarborough], and sometimes even individuals who try to operate "above the fray" of punditry like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart Jon Stewart], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Leno Jay Leno], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Letterman David Letterman] (See [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/09/web_only_campaign_advertisements_flood_presidential_race/ "Web-only campaign advertisements flood presidential race"] "In a study released last summer....the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found most Americans heard about the most famous viral videos because they saw them replayed on TV").

Because a large and increasing number of Americans get their news from media personalities rather than from traditional broadcast or print media sources, these individuals have significant power to shape the national political discussion. Still, beyond campaigns' web-only ads, there hasn't ''yet'' been a concerted effort to use the Internet to directly influence these personalities and their television shows.

'''PROPOSAL'''

This void can be filled by a website that publishes a rating system and gauges/grades each of these media personalities (over multiple periods of time: daily [i.e., per episode], monthly, etc.) with a variety of qualitative metrics.

Ideally, such metrics would focus on process rather than substance (e.g., % of material that avoids explicit mention of either party's talking-points-of-the-day; % of in-show discussion that is active, fair dialogue with guests of opposing perspectives). Some metrics would be determined by the site's designers while others would be generated and selected (i.e., voted on) by the site's users. A team of qualitative analysts would code each media personality's episodes for (1) the site designers' metrics and (2) any given metric a critical mass the website's users select, and publish the results daily.

This website would be most influential as a source for audience feedback beyond bare headcounts (i.e., network viewer ratings). For some media personalities, that feedback will act as a friendly nudge that helps them improve their shows. For others, the ultimate message might sound more like [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8 Jon Stewart on Crossfire].

'''QUESTIONS (each followed by potential answers)'''

*(1) How should this kind of a site be funded, and by whom?
**Non-partisan journalism NGOs through a project grant
**The Berkman Center (see "Donations" link in navigation pane in left frame)
*(2) What kind of knowledge workers would the daily operations require?
**College research assistants as coders
*(3) What kind of goals should such a website pursue?
**Active dialogue
**More informed discussion
**Sophistication of television personalities
**Honesty
**Bipartisanship
**Dedication to truth
**Fighting the political class's elitism
**Fighting prejudices/smears
**Deconstructing euphemistic language/political correctness
**Strengthening/Weakening political parties' control of the national political dialogue
**Expansion of the national political dialogue to include new and unique perspectives
*(4) How else could a pundit-centric website serve to channel the widespread complaints of "Media Bias" into a polished online platform?
**Hall of Shame for self-proclaimed (one-time guest) "Analysts" and "Experts" who actually have no rightful claim to either title.
**Sponsor and/or Host Op-Eds, Blogs, Vlogs, [http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Is-Religion-Built-Upon-Lies.aspx?p=1 "Blogologues"], and [http://bloggingheads.tv/ "Diavlogs"] by premier Media/Journalism academics.
**Work to immediately uncover the ''original'' sources of stories in order (1) to get a sense of who is already influencing media personalities (and their writers) and (2) to push back against rushed vetting of unsubstantiated stories (a la [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html Martin Eisenstadt])
**Highlight stories/angles the traditional anchors are broadcasting that these hosts are ignoring/purposely passing on.
*(5) How much embedded footage of ''actual shows'' can such a website legally display under Fair Use?
**A good place to start looking is [http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Talking Points Memo's "The Day in 100 Seconds" Vidcast Series]
--[[User:CKennedy|CKennedy]] 01:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

=== The First USA CTO ===

President-elect Obama's promise to appoint the first USA CTO has turned many heads, and discussions on what the (as of yet unappointed) CTO should do have started up, notably at http://obamacto.org/. Several other related links not purely focused on "US CTO" issues:

* http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/32788/presidential_transition_2_0_how_to_use_new_social_media
* http://www.govloop.com/

=== Deliberation Day ===

The paper on the study, and where similar effects re: citizen participation may be seen.

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

Minors have long been recognized to not have free speech rights that are co-extensive with adults. But with the Internet, how do we define those rights? And what, if any, regulation should the government enact to protect minors on the Internet, while also respecting their rights?

There are two traditional categories where minors' free speech rights have been restricted. The first is with respect to pornography, the second with respect to the school environment. These two areas raise different concerns.

===== Pornography =====

The Government has on several occasions attempted to place restrictions on Internet access with the intention of preventing minors from viewing pornography. Nobody questions the Government's legitimate interest in restricting pornography, however the Government has run into substantial legal problems with most legislation it has enacted - primarily because the statutes were found to curtail the free speech rights of adults.

Issues:
*Should the Government attempt regulation in this field at all?
** Does self regulation work?
** Is there any way to enact legislation to protect minors without limiting protected adult access?
*What would be defined as the community?
** Is there any way to develop a "community standard" where the Internet is inherently national/global?
*Do adults' rights to view porn mean that the Government must allow them to do so should it create free public access to the Internet?
*Privacy
** If, as currently proposed, a method is developed to determine whether an Internet user is a minor, how do we protect the privacy of the users?
** Do opt-in/opt-out policies go against our rights to privacy?

* The above discussion confuses obscenity with pornography. Obscenity law conveys a form of moral condemnation from the position of the status quo. Pornography law, if it ever existed, attempted a political analysis of equality principles. There are few things that will guarantee a messageboard clusterfuck like a discussion of pornography and heaven forbid you ever suggest that someone might one day take somone's porn away. One of the reasons for this situation is that the views and voices of the pornography-skeptical left have been almost completely drowned out and the vast majority of pornography viewers think that only a puritanical right opposes the idea (and thus each pornographic image consumed becomes a blow against Pat Robertson on behalf of liberty). If you believe that pornography involves serious concerns of civil rights then it's unclear how the internet or modern modes of transmission ultimately changes much other than providing easier access to rights violations. A radical position might exhort an abandonment of a commitment to equality in the face of overwhelming firepower, but that's not one that many would adopt. That said, it's pretty clear you're talking about obscenity, given the reference to community standards and so on. Keeping these two issues analytically separate is always the second thing to go in these discussions (once we've silenced certain voices). --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 17:30, 30 November 2008 (EST)

**I can see how the confusion about pornography and obscenity can arise, but just to be clear, its the regulation of pornography with respect to minors that is raising the issue - not pornography in general. From my limited knowledge of free speech laws, it seems pretty clear that regulation of access to porn by minors is pretty much established. As to the "community standards" this in fact has been raised with respect to porn by the FCC. Currently, there is a proposal to auction spectrum to allow free broadband access to the Internet, provided that it is "porn free." The rationale given is that this is to protect minors, and what porn would be filtered would be based on community standards. See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services, WT Docket Nos. 07-195 and 05-356, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-158 (rel. June 20, 2008). It explicitly states that the provider of the free Internet would need to have a filter that "filters or blocks images and text that constitute obscenity or pornography and, in context, as measured by contemporary community standards and existing law, any images or text that otherwise would be harmful to teens and adolescents. For purposes of this rule, teens and adolescents are children 5 through 17 years of age[.]" Id. (emphasis added). -- [[User:Bepa|Bepa]] 18:30, 30 November 2008 (EST)

***The rabbit gets put in the hat when you say "regulation of pornography with respect to minors." We regulate child pornography (that is, pornography involving minors) and the access to obscene materials by minors. Since [http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hudnut.html Hudnut] this country has not regulated pornography that does not involve children. [http://ifea.net/cipa.pdf CIPA] and other laws regulate the ability of children to access obscene material on the Internet, but does not regulate pornography that does not involve children. Of course, this point is often lost even by somewhat credible observers and it certainly seems a little beyond Rehnquist in [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZO.html United States V. American Library Assn., Inc.]. As far as the proposed FCC rules, my guess is that the Court would find them to be unconstitutional insofar that they prohibited the dissemination of pornography, but they'd be fine if they were just limited to obscenity. Intuitively, this tracks the larger discussion. Those who seek to protect children from obscenity are concerned about issues of morality and sin, not equality and justice. The community standards issue only applies to obscenity and for these reasons. I'm less concerned with the substance of this actual debate (which may be beyond the scope of this class) than keeping the terms straight (and thereby unsilencing a valid viewpoint in these discussions). --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 19:13, 30 November 2008 (EST)

===== Schools =====

Courts have recognized that the minors do not have rights to engage in speech that has a substantial impact on the school setting, or runs against pedagogical interests. For example, displaying a sign that questionably promotes drug use while at a school sponsored event is not protected speech. Minors are also most likely prevented from passing around a flier encouraging students to riot if they pass that flier around at school. But what if they pass the message as a digital flier? Perhaps the students create a group on Facebook encouraging students to simultaneously drop their pencils at 11:30 am, and again every 5 minutes for the rest of the day. Is that speech protected if all the activity takes place from the home?

Issues:

*What type of activity should be regulated, if at all?
** Should Internet activity that takes place primarily at home, but creates a disruption at school, be protected?
*** What if the disruption at school is substantial? Not substantial?
*** What if the speech is only tangentially related to the school setting, but still creates some impact there?
*How do we balance the legitimate pedagogical needs of minors to have access to the Internet with the need to create an environment where students can learn, free from distraction?

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Shubham Mukherjee
Debbie Rosenbaum
Matt Sanchez

How has new media affected traditional industries and challenged traditional law? How do we deal with the fact that there is little legal infrastructure in today's new media environments? Do we apply old laws to new technologies? Do we create new regulations? How can we create good sound policy that aligns with both our legal aspirations and the technological realities of today?

This topic will aim to explore these questions by analyzing the music industry v. Tenenbaum, a case the three of us are working on pro-bono with Professor Charles Nesson, co-founder of the Berkman Center.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

Much like open-source software, the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world. How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way. This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though. With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== What if someone somehow takes down the net? ===
We have come to rely on the Internet for almost every aspect of our lives. If the Internet somehow suddenly went "down" (through either a cyberattack or physical attack on key backbone pieces of infrastructure), the result would likely be calamity, as well as hordes of people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Can we even imagine what the world would look like the morning after such an attack if it was successful? Are we wrong to rely so heavily on a single tool whose detailed technical inner workings so few people truly understand? Are we setting ourselves up to be ruined when someone compromises this tool? What about the tradeoffs between keeping the Net free+open vs. regulation to ensure that it retains its functional integrity in the face of attack?

We can invite Dan Kaminsky, who recently discovered a flaw in the inner-workings of the Net that could have caused some serious damage. See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/technology/09flaw.html?hp
(or we could invite will smith, who defeated the aliens in independence day with the help of cyber-attack).

Topics

2008-11-30T22:30:35Z

Megerman: /* Pornography */

Topics

2008-11-30T00:37:41Z

Megerman: /* Environmental Concerns */

Topics

2008-11-30T00:36:50Z

Megerman: /* The Internet and Societal Inequity */

Topics

2008-11-29T14:00:17Z

Megerman: /* Anonymity */

= Topic guidance =

* Are you excited about it?
* Does it relate to law (not entirely necessary)
* Does it relate to tech (not entirely necessary)
** To be sure, these are rebuttable presumptions :)

Q: Are there any circumstances in which we can do a team of three?
A: Yes! If I'm doing the math right, there are 12 seminar slots next term, of which we'll be using 11. There are 26 people. So with 2 per session that leaves 4 floaters; there can be 4 of the 11 sessions with 3 instead of 2. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 17:30, 27 November 2008 (EST)

= Topics =

This page is for topics that we have not yet scheduled (but potentially should). Please add suggestions to the bottom of this page, and feel free to modify the descriptions for topics already listed.

== Discourse theory ==
We should do a survey overview of the topic.

[http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1238 A Summary of Discourse Theory]

== Discursive tools and practices ==

We should do a survey overview of the topic!

== Prediction markets ==

intrade, etc.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeSports Tradesports] announced last week that it will [http://www.tradesports.com/ cease operations] at the end of this month. Does fallout from the current economic crisis include regulatory changes that spell doom for online prediction markets? Or is something else going on here? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 11:05, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== Interactive Education ==

Building on the work of MWesch (video here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o) think about innovation in the classroom beyond the blackboard. How can we better interact in the classroom and how can technology help?

== Anonymity ==

"on the internet, nobody knows that you're a dog." Or tall, or 12 years old, or a hairdresser by day, or a lesbian, or in India, or with a harelip, or... but also: now that we can't filter by that by default, what do we filter by? Do we now bias towards good writers - and what of people who communicate best non-verbally?

What legitimate and illegitimate uses for anonymity are available on the internet? When is personal information useful, and when is verification appropriate? Last week's discussion about the different cultures on Wikipedia and Ebay and the use of behavioral enforcement mechanisms (ebay rating system, thumbs up/down-ing other drivers, etc.) reminded me of a panel from my favorite webcomic: http://xkcd.com/325/. As noted in the Properties subtext to the comic, "You can do this one in every 30 times and still have 97% positive feedback." How concerned should we be that people--be they selfish, malicious, or simply lunatics--can exploit such weaknesses in systems for building online reputations? If this is a real problem, how can we change current systems or create new ones to better protect users? And what are the trade-offs that come with better protection? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 11:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Also, what are the political and social implications of anonymitiy in countries with less free expression than the United States. In the Chinese example, we might speculate that with the internet more discourse is going on, in contexts ranging from political debates to hobby and commercial communities, but people may be motivated to try to remain anonymous. "Real name" requirements in some countries may challenge this, but circumvention methods exist. Then, how many people use circumvention methods, and how many users use them in a way that truly maintains anonymity? What does it mean that civic discourse might explode, but without real names attached? --[[User:G|G]] 11:58, 28 November 2008 (EST)

To what extent does our received wisdom on anonymity reflect previous modes of technological development? With the advent of data mining, can an author truly be anonymous by leaving his/her name out, if that information can be ascertained quickly? Did old-style pamphletting allow for better anonymity? How good are names at identifying something that is person-like? Does the repeated use of a pseudonym change anything? Could anyone in revolutionary times write under the name Publius? Can anyone do that on wikipedia? Does the design of the internet allow/encourage anonymous postings or have we been lulled into a false sense of security by programs like [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]? How do avatars and pseudonyms change these discussions? Is this a question of identity or accountability or neither? What does it mean to sue a username? Does the ability to remain unnammed expand the range of discourse or have a chilling effect of its own? Is the act of remaining unnammed ultimately a collective move, as in the case of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) Anonymous], or an inherently individuating move? Would granting users the right to remain pseudononymous create a tragedy of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticommons anticommons], effectively rendering all userboards unusable? Does anonymity allow users to transcend bigotry or does it reinforce it? --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 09:00, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Sources ==

Where does the information for/during discussions come from? Interfaces/ease-of-access/digestibility of information affects how quickly it can get injected into conversations? (examples: hitting wikipedia in the middle of a dinner discussion, calling an expert friend or hitting another IRC channel to answer a quick question, etc). How does this affect how people prepare for conversations? (If you can easily look up notes during the meeting, why take them down beforehand?) Trying to apply some thoughts about [http://blog.melchua.com/2006/03/31/on-the-future-of-libraries-2/ info access in libraries] to this.

Also, what if any tools exist to help people archive previous states of dynamic sites such as BBSs and news pages? In other words, after information comes into discussions, how can we see what happened after the fact? --[[User:G|G]] 12:01, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== Identity and expertise ==

How are participants in an internet dialog identified and credentialed? What gives weight to a participants' arguments - or phrased another way, what type of participants and arguments have weight, and what determines this for each discussion, participant, and discussion point?

== 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?

== Meta-Public Policy ==

See, e.g., Larry Lessig's Change Congress movement: http://change-congress.org/about/. Being Larry Lessig, the whole thing is tech-friendly.

== Online Activism ==

Of course there are a lot of custom-built tools for mobilizing people online to get things done in the real world. On the other hand, what about more general tools? We've all been invited, via Facebook, to join groups and attend events (the Obama campaign certainly made good use of this); is there a generalizable model here?

Facebook groups dedicated to particular causes remind me of the online petitions that began circulating widely via email about ten years ago: their effectiveness in accomplishing real world change--and even their visibility to individuals capable of affecting the desired changes--are dubious. Is the real purpose of these movements simply to make participants ''feel'' like they are being active and involved? What percentage of those who signed email petitions in the 1990s were aware that their signatures were unverifiable and that the widely-distributed emails were unlikely to be collated and submitted to an official authority? What expectations do participants in facebook group causes have for their involvement and its consequences? The facebook group causes are certainly more centralized and visible than the old email petitions, and they provide a better tool for identifying and communicating with supporters in order to mobilize them in an organized fashion. How often is such mobilization attempted, and with what degree of success? As a tool of online activism, is facebook a step forward from chain emails, is it a step in a different direction, or does it just serve the same old functions but in newer packaging? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 08:26, 29 November 2008 (EST)

==Meta-Pundit==

''Conor Kennedy''

'''PREMISE'''

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, web-only advertisements helped to shape the talking points of media personalities like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Matthews Chris Matthews] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann Keith Olbermann], [http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/ Greta Van Susteren], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Scarborough Joe Scarborough], and sometimes even individuals who try to operate "above the fray" of punditry like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart Jon Stewart], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Leno Jay Leno], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Letterman David Letterman] (See [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/09/web_only_campaign_advertisements_flood_presidential_race/ "Web-only campaign advertisements flood presidential race"] "In a study released last summer....the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found most Americans heard about the most famous viral videos because they saw them replayed on TV").

Because a large and increasing number of Americans get their news from media personalities rather than from traditional broadcast or print media sources, these individuals have significant power to shape the national political discussion. Still, beyond campaigns' web-only ads, there hasn't ''yet'' been a concerted effort to use the Internet to directly influence these personalities and their television shows.

'''PROPOSAL'''

This void can be filled by a website that publishes a rating system and gauges/grades each of these media personalities (over multiple periods of time: daily [i.e., per episode], monthly, etc.) with a variety of qualitative metrics.

Ideally, such metrics would focus on process rather than substance (e.g., % of material that avoids explicit mention of either party's talking-points-of-the-day; % of in-show discussion that is active, fair dialogue with guests of opposing perspectives). Some metrics would be determined by the site's designers while others would be generated and selected (i.e., voted on) by the site's users. A team of qualitative analysts would code each media personality's episodes for (1) the site designers' metrics and (2) any given metric a critical mass the website's users select, and publish the results daily.

This website would be most influential as a source for audience feedback beyond bare headcounts (i.e., network viewer ratings). For some media personalities, that feedback will act as a friendly nudge that helps them improve their shows. For others, the ultimate message might sound more like [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8 Jon Stewart on Crossfire].

'''QUESTIONS (each followed by potential answers)'''

*(1) How should this kind of a site be funded, and by whom?
**Non-partisan journalism NGOs through a project grant
**The Berkman Center (see "Donations" link in navigation pane in left frame)
*(2) What kind of knowledge workers would the daily operations require?
**College research assistants as coders
*(3) What kind of goals should such a website pursue?
**Active dialogue
**More informed discussion
**Sophistication of television personalities
**Honesty
**Bipartisanship
**Dedication to truth
**Fighting the political class's elitism
**Fighting prejudices/smears
**Deconstructing euphemistic language/political correctness
**Strengthening/Weakening political parties' control of the national political dialogue
**Expansion of the national political dialogue to include new and unique perspectives
*(4) How else could a pundit-centric website serve to channel the widespread complaints of "Media Bias" into a polished online platform?
**Hall of Shame for self-proclaimed (one-time guest) "Analysts" and "Experts" who actually have no rightful claim to either title.
**Sponsor and/or Host Op-Eds, Blogs, Vlogs, [http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Is-Religion-Built-Upon-Lies.aspx?p=1 "Blogologues"], and [http://bloggingheads.tv/ "Diavlogs"] by premier Media/Journalism academics.
**Work to immediately uncover the ''original'' sources of stories in order (1) to get a sense of who is already influencing media personalities (and their writers) and (2) to push back against rushed vetting of unsubstantiated stories (a la [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html Martin Eisenstadt])
**Highlight stories/angles the traditional anchors are broadcasting that these hosts are ignoring/purposely passing on.
*(5) How much embedded footage of ''actual shows'' can such a website legally display under Fair Use?
**A good place to start looking is [http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Talking Points Memo's "The Day in 100 Seconds" Vidcast Series]
--[[User:CKennedy|CKennedy]] 01:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== The first USA CTO ==

President-elect Obama's promise to appoint the first USA CTO has turned many heads, and discussions on what the (as of yet unappointed) CTO should do have started up, notably at http://obamacto.org/. Several other related links not purely focused on "US CTO" issues:

* http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/32788/presidential_transition_2_0_how_to_use_new_social_media
* http://www.govloop.com/

== Unconferences ==

Unconferences represent a form of event-based discourse that seems chaotic but is actually organized around a set of well-codified rules intended to encourage initiative-taking by participants and ensure that the event is truly community-run and ad-hoc. Also known as "[http://www.openspaceworld.com/users_guide.htm Open Space]" events, they take several different forms, including [http://www.barcamp.org/ Barcamps] (which have been expanded to podcamps, etc.)

== Open Source Software ==

How can a dispersed, multilingual collection of coders working for free assemble something as complicated as a web browser, let alone an entire operating system? Open-source projects are famously free-wheeling, but different organizational models and tools have sprung up to solve these obstacles.

== Internet Governance ==

Much like open-source software, the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world. How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way. This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though. With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

== The Semantic Web ==

What has become of this idea? Are we already there? Is it yet to come? Or has it died along the way? [Rainer]

== Deliberative polling literature ==

In a nutshell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_opinion_poll

== Deliberation Day ==

The paper on the study, and where similar effects re: citizen participation may be seen.

== Peer-to-Patent ==

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

== Systran ==

== One Laptop Per Child ==

== Collaborative Textbooks ==

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Weeler Declaration])

== Net Neutrality ==

== Recording Harvard Law School Classes and Posting Them on iTunes U ==

Law schools tend not to post free class recordings on iTunes U. Should HLS take the opportunity to trailblaze? What are the law-school-specific challenges and the legal issues surrounding publishing audio recordings of HLS classes? What are the benefits? What about recording classes just for the benefit of the students (posted, as on religious holidays, solely on enrolled students' MyHLS pages)

== Chillingeffects.org ==

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

== Internet and Power ==

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?

*A solutions-focused question here might be: what tools might encourage a more egalitarian internet, both nationally and internationally? How can online applications be designed to encourage social equality? (Berkman Fellow [http://eszter.com Eszter Hargittai] has worked on some related questions, focusing on research about how people actually use the internet.) --[[User:G|G]] 12:12, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== Google Book Search ==

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== Open Access Publishing ==

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

== The future of news ==

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]. 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 is [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21times.html?ref=business dropping]. TV and radio are experiencing similar problems.

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, the web offers these organisations a huge opportunity. Already, groups such as [http://spot.us/ spot.us] and [http://www.propublica.org/ Pro Publica] are experimenting with new business models. 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. Many are using the web to reach out to audiences and connect with them in new ways.

But, are they doing enough? Will experiments like this be enough to save news organisations? Does it matter if they disappear? 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”?

== Language Divides/Autotranslation ==

Though it doesn't penetrate to every physical location on Earth (unless you can afford sattelite link-ups), the internet is an exceptionally global medium. With the barriers to access lower than any earlier medium for high-volume international communication, it represents an opportunity for greater international discourse and the deepening of a sense of global society. But unless we can reassemble the Tower of Babel, significant and entrenched divides exist: people simply don't always understand each other's language.

As certain languages become prevalent for international discourse, native users of that language have an advantage in communication. Auto-translation software such as Google Translate, Babelfish, and many others represent an opportunity to flatten this embeded advantage structure that favors people educated where linguae francae are native languages. Moreover, human translation communities such as [http://globalvoicesonline.org Global Voices Online] provide an edited and selected digest of what the editors notice in many languages.

What are the potential bridges for language divides? Which work better and for what? What are the implications of mistranslations by machines? --[[User:G|G]] 12:25, 28 November 2008 (EST)

People

2008-11-21T21:21:39Z

Megerman:

* [[User:Mchua]]
* [[User:g]]
* [[User:Miriam]]
* [[User:dulles]]
* [[User:jf]]
* [[User:danray]]
* [[User:lbaker]]
* [[User: Jfishman]]
* [[User:Megerman]]

User:Megerman

2008-11-21T21:21:17Z

Megerman: New page: Hi all. I'm Mark Egerman, currently a 3L. Before law school, I was a student at the School of Computer Science at CMU, where I became interested in a number of the issues involving the i...

Hi all. I'm Mark Egerman, currently a 3L. Before law school, I was a student at the School of Computer Science at CMU, where I became interested in a number of the issues involving the intersection of computing and society. I was the first student in a program known as [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/tcingc/|Technical Consulting in the Global Community] and was sent to Rarotonga for a few months to help network the island's hospital. I then went to the University of Cambridge for a master's in development studies and remain interested in issues about ICT for development.

In addition to international concerns, I've become interested in the intersection of sex equality, technical innovation, free speech, and access to information in the context of pseudononymous bulliten boards. After I graduate, I plan on starting my own public interest law firm and may find myself litigating some of these issues. Sorry if I sue you.