Collective Action and Decision-making - Revision history

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

2013-01-17T21:58:00Z

UTurn to 1303516799

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 17 January 2013
Line 54:		Line 54:


	I have praised the emergence of personalized media, so-called "The Daily Me," as the contribution to efficiency in information gathering and classifying. Thus, it was an perplexing confrontation of reading Sustein's assertion on information cocoon dwellers. It is true that people like to hear and see what they want to hear and see and that principle applies to the online activities to some degree. While I was pondering on this notion, a certain idea came up to me: now there is this platform for diversity to spread its wings, but aren't people being more obstinate about their beliefs and tenets? It is just that I could hardly find the interchanges between liberals and conservatives in the Internet forums, except those with acrid animosity. --[[User:Yu Ri\|Yu Ri]] 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)		I have praised the emergence of personalized media, so-called "The Daily Me," as the contribution to efficiency in information gathering and classifying. Thus, it was an perplexing confrontation of reading Sustein's assertion on information cocoon dwellers. It is true that people like to hear and see what they want to hear and see and that principle applies to the online activities to some degree. While I was pondering on this notion, a certain idea came up to me: now there is this platform for diversity to spread its wings, but aren't people being more obstinate about their beliefs and tenets? It is just that I could hardly find the interchanges between liberals and conservatives in the Internet forums, except those with acrid animosity. --[[User:Yu Ri\|Yu Ri]] 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


	I understand the concern over collective action and whether it lowers the quality of the project. My paper has a lot to do with this and the term homophily. Homophilic groups are everywhere but are they beneficial? I'm tackling this in my final paper. camcloughlin mentioned above how polarizing they are.How can we address this? Also, what about the decision making especially when the views are public? I know the old saying, "There is safety in numbers", but we have to ask ourselves why do we continue to crowd source? Websites such as urbandictionary and Wikipedia rely heavily on such action. But what happens then they are wrong? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 20:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


Line 147:		Line 144:

	(New post) Ethan Zuckerman's review of ''Infotopia'' made me want to read Sunstein's book. The breadth of topics that Sunstein explores is impressive. From my organizational behavior perch, I especially liked the coverage of group think and cocooning. As an added bonus, Zuckerman contributes another layer of insight in his treatment of Sunstein's themes.--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)		(New post) Ethan Zuckerman's review of ''Infotopia'' made me want to read Sunstein's book. The breadth of topics that Sunstein explores is impressive. From my organizational behavior perch, I especially liked the coverage of group think and cocooning. As an added bonus, Zuckerman contributes another layer of insight in his treatment of Sunstein's themes.--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


	Indeed, I was happy to see groupthink mentioned as well. It is a serious problem in decision-making (however large or small) and so common. The worst has got to be when a whole country succumbs to it. A friend from Cuba was telling me about the strict internet laws over there (he has some family there). It's sad. I read this article too: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/27/v-fullstory/2085943/cubas-internet-repression-equals.html
	~~[[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)~~


	Hey all! I found this really interesting little study I found on a woman's personal blog, which she called "[http://kirbybits.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/here-is-a-project-troll-data-analysis/ Troll! Data! Analysis!]," that I thought might be interesting to share. Courtney Stanton wrote a post on her WordPress blog about women, haters, and rape culture in online gaming, and was so astounded by the responses to the post that she decided to do a wee study on the trolls of those comments. I thought it was neat to see her methodology, how she broke things down and the conclusions she came to - basically, that trolls contribute nothing (which we all already knew, but now we know the characteristics of their nothingness), and that allowing thoughtful responses to a contentious topic, whether or not you agree with them, can actually foster respectful conversation and be good for you and your blog. I thought this was particularly relevant giving the theme of "cocooning" in this week's readings. Would it be appropriate for me to add this under the "Links" section of this page, with a little description and a disclaimer that it is student-submitted and not from the profs/TAs? --[[User:mcforelle\|mcforelle]] 19:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)		Hey all! I found this really interesting little study I found on a woman's personal blog, which she called "[http://kirbybits.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/here-is-a-project-troll-data-analysis/ Troll! Data! Analysis!]," that I thought might be interesting to share. Courtney Stanton wrote a post on her WordPress blog about women, haters, and rape culture in online gaming, and was so astounded by the responses to the post that she decided to do a wee study on the trolls of those comments. I thought it was neat to see her methodology, how she broke things down and the conclusions she came to - basically, that trolls contribute nothing (which we all already knew, but now we know the characteristics of their nothingness), and that allowing thoughtful responses to a contentious topic, whether or not you agree with them, can actually foster respectful conversation and be good for you and your blog. I thought this was particularly relevant giving the theme of "cocooning" in this week's readings. Would it be appropriate for me to add this under the "Links" section of this page, with a little description and a disclaimer that it is student-submitted and not from the profs/TAs? --[[User:mcforelle\|mcforelle]] 19:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 175:		Line 167:
	* Interesting talk tonight (24 Feb), open to the public from what I can tell. Video will be posted afterwards, if you can't make it:		* Interesting talk tonight (24 Feb), open to the public from what I can tell. Video will be posted afterwards, if you can't make it:
	** [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/online_news.html#abstract ONLINE NEWS: Public Sphere or Echo Chamber?] - 5-7pm, [http://whereis.mit.edu/?go=3 3-270] ~~[[User:mcforelle\|mcforelle]] 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)		** [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/online_news.html#abstract ONLINE NEWS: Public Sphere or Echo Chamber?] - 5-7pm, [http://whereis.mit.edu/?go=3 3-270] ~~[[User:mcforelle\|mcforelle]] 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

	I found this article that discusses the purchasing power of the masses. [[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938601.htm The Power Of Us] [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 15:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Joshuasurillo: /* Links */

2011-05-11T15:34:32Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 11 May 2011
Line 175:		Line 175:
	* Interesting talk tonight (24 Feb), open to the public from what I can tell. Video will be posted afterwards, if you can't make it:		* Interesting talk tonight (24 Feb), open to the public from what I can tell. Video will be posted afterwards, if you can't make it:
	** [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/online_news.html#abstract ONLINE NEWS: Public Sphere or Echo Chamber?] - 5-7pm, [http://whereis.mit.edu/?go=3 3-270] ~~[[User:mcforelle\|mcforelle]] 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)		** [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/online_news.html#abstract ONLINE NEWS: Public Sphere or Echo Chamber?] - 5-7pm, [http://whereis.mit.edu/?go=3 3-270] ~~[[User:mcforelle\|mcforelle]] 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

			I found this article that discusses the purchasing power of the masses. [[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938601.htm The Power Of Us] [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 15:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Myra at 20:46, 9 May 2011

2011-05-09T20:46:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 9 May 2011
Line 149:		Line 149:


	Indeed, I was happy to see ~~group-think~~ mentioned as well. It is a serious problem in decision-making (however large or small) and so common. ~~Ihe~~ worst has got to be when a whole country succumbs to it. A friend from Cuba was telling me about the strict internet laws over there (he has some family there). It's sad. I read this article too: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/27/v-fullstory/2085943/cubas-internet-repression-equals.html		Indeed, I was happy to see groupthink mentioned as well. It is a serious problem in decision-making (however large or small) and so common. The worst has got to be when a whole country succumbs to it. A friend from Cuba was telling me about the strict internet laws over there (he has some family there). It's sad. I read this article too: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/27/v-fullstory/2085943/cubas-internet-repression-equals.html
	[[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)		[[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Myra at 20:45, 9 May 2011

2011-05-09T20:45:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 9 May 2011
Line 147:		Line 147:

	(New post) Ethan Zuckerman's review of ''Infotopia'' made me want to read Sunstein's book. The breadth of topics that Sunstein explores is impressive. From my organizational behavior perch, I especially liked the coverage of group think and cocooning. As an added bonus, Zuckerman contributes another layer of insight in his treatment of Sunstein's themes.--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)		(New post) Ethan Zuckerman's review of ''Infotopia'' made me want to read Sunstein's book. The breadth of topics that Sunstein explores is impressive. From my organizational behavior perch, I especially liked the coverage of group think and cocooning. As an added bonus, Zuckerman contributes another layer of insight in his treatment of Sunstein's themes.--[[User:SCL\|SCL]] 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


			Indeed, I was happy to see group-think mentioned as well. It is a serious problem in decision-making (however large or small) and so common. Ihe worst has got to be when a whole country succumbs to it. A friend from Cuba was telling me about the strict internet laws over there (he has some family there). It's sad. I read this article too: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/27/v-fullstory/2085943/cubas-internet-repression-equals.html
			[[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


	Hey all! I found this really interesting little study I found on a woman's personal blog, which she called "[http://kirbybits.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/here-is-a-project-troll-data-analysis/ Troll! Data! Analysis!]," that I thought might be interesting to share. Courtney Stanton wrote a post on her WordPress blog about women, haters, and rape culture in online gaming, and was so astounded by the responses to the post that she decided to do a wee study on the trolls of those comments. I thought it was neat to see her methodology, how she broke things down and the conclusions she came to - basically, that trolls contribute nothing (which we all already knew, but now we know the characteristics of their nothingness), and that allowing thoughtful responses to a contentious topic, whether or not you agree with them, can actually foster respectful conversation and be good for you and your blog. I thought this was particularly relevant giving the theme of "cocooning" in this week's readings. Would it be appropriate for me to add this under the "Links" section of this page, with a little description and a disclaimer that it is student-submitted and not from the profs/TAs? --[[User:mcforelle\|mcforelle]] 19:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)		Hey all! I found this really interesting little study I found on a woman's personal blog, which she called "[http://kirbybits.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/here-is-a-project-troll-data-analysis/ Troll! Data! Analysis!]," that I thought might be interesting to share. Courtney Stanton wrote a post on her WordPress blog about women, haters, and rape culture in online gaming, and was so astounded by the responses to the post that she decided to do a wee study on the trolls of those comments. I thought it was neat to see her methodology, how she broke things down and the conclusions she came to - basically, that trolls contribute nothing (which we all already knew, but now we know the characteristics of their nothingness), and that allowing thoughtful responses to a contentious topic, whether or not you agree with them, can actually foster respectful conversation and be good for you and your blog. I thought this was particularly relevant giving the theme of "cocooning" in this week's readings. Would it be appropriate for me to add this under the "Links" section of this page, with a little description and a disclaimer that it is student-submitted and not from the profs/TAs? --[[User:mcforelle\|mcforelle]] 19:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Elishasurillo at 20:41, 8 May 2011

2011-05-08T20:41:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:41, 8 May 2011
Line 57:		Line 57:


	I understand the concern over collective action and whether it lowers the quality of the project. My paper has a lot to do with this and the term homophily. Homophilic groups are everywhere but are they beneficial? I'm tackling this in my final paper. camcloughlin mentioned above how polarizing they are.How can we address this? Also, what about the decision making especially when the views are public? I know the old saying, "There is safety in numbers", but we have to ask ourselves ~~ask~~ do we continue to crowd source? Websites such as urbandictionary and Wikipedia rely heavily on such action. But what happens then they are wrong? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 20:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)		I understand the concern over collective action and whether it lowers the quality of the project. My paper has a lot to do with this and the term homophily. Homophilic groups are everywhere but are they beneficial? I'm tackling this in my final paper. camcloughlin mentioned above how polarizing they are.How can we address this? Also, what about the decision making especially when the views are public? I know the old saying, "There is safety in numbers", but we have to ask ourselves why do we continue to crowd source? Websites such as urbandictionary and Wikipedia rely heavily on such action. But what happens then they are wrong? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 20:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Elishasurillo at 20:40, 8 May 2011

2011-05-08T20:40:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 8 May 2011
Line 54:		Line 54:


	I have praised the emergence of personalized media, so-called "The Daily Me," as the contribution to efficiency in information gathering and classifying. Thus, it was an perplexing confrontation of reading Sustein's assertion on information cocoon dwellers. It is true that people like to hear and see what they want to hear and see and that principle applies to the online activities to some degree. While I was pondering on this notion, a certain idea came up to me: now there is this platform for diversity to spread its wings, but aren't people being more obstinate about their beliefs and tenets? It is just that I could hardly find the interchanges between liberals and conservatives in the Internet forums, except those with acrid animosity. --[[User:Yu Ri\|Yu Ri]] 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)		I have praised the emergence of personalized media, so-called "The Daily Me," as the contribution to efficiency in information gathering and classifying. Thus, it was an perplexing confrontation of reading Sustein's assertion on information cocoon dwellers. It is true that people like to hear and see what they want to hear and see and that principle applies to the online activities to some degree. While I was pondering on this notion, a certain idea came up to me: now there is this platform for diversity to spread its wings, but aren't people being more obstinate about their beliefs and tenets? It is just that I could hardly find the interchanges between liberals and conservatives in the Internet forums, except those with acrid animosity. --[[User:Yu Ri\|Yu Ri]] 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


			I understand the concern over collective action and whether it lowers the quality of the project. My paper has a lot to do with this and the term homophily. Homophilic groups are everywhere but are they beneficial? I'm tackling this in my final paper. camcloughlin mentioned above how polarizing they are.How can we address this? Also, what about the decision making especially when the views are public? I know the old saying, "There is safety in numbers", but we have to ask ourselves ask do we continue to crowd source? Websites such as urbandictionary and Wikipedia rely heavily on such action. But what happens then they are wrong? [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 20:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

VladimirK: /* Class Discussion */

2011-02-25T09:35:16Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:35, 25 February 2011
Line 59:		Line 59:
	I think that the posted below concern about the purpose and structure is fair enough to draw our attention to the meaning of the curriculum; the meaning that makes a difference between well-informed person and well-educated person. No objections, of course, to the administrators of this course, they did marvelous research on relevant literature, but as some of us began noticing, the material does not follow logically to build up a skill. I know that in some countries people are spending many years to learn how to properly relate material to students, not simply make them memorize everything. In order to guess on our own what pedagogy might have been behind this giant sheer volume, we must align the material in order so that each concept will serve as a preamble for the next one, and all key terms then will be logically connected to the main scheme. It seems that after sorting out all major concepts from the minor key terms, we are aiming to arrive at the issue of ideological, society based, differences within one giant infrastructure called the internet. After examining most ideologically conflicting dimensions, we must derive a method that will keep catalytic reactions between those most extreme ideologies under control. This method, I assume, should include political, policy-based, and technological instruments. In order to build these instruments we must rely on our predecessors whose remarkable writings we have at our disposal. As some of you have already noticed that some of the writings are of a high caliber and some are of a low and average; nevertheless, they do contribute substance to the sphere of the course. It is therefore crucial to distinguish a high caliber conceptual pieces of writing from the low or mediocre type of writings. Then, we should align them in the right sequence so that we can apply our reasoning, not only memory. I guess this is as far as I should go because as we know, some of the writers are working at the Berkman Center - the host of the course. It will be unethical from my side to point out on the perplexity they may create.		I think that the posted below concern about the purpose and structure is fair enough to draw our attention to the meaning of the curriculum; the meaning that makes a difference between well-informed person and well-educated person. No objections, of course, to the administrators of this course, they did marvelous research on relevant literature, but as some of us began noticing, the material does not follow logically to build up a skill. I know that in some countries people are spending many years to learn how to properly relate material to students, not simply make them memorize everything. In order to guess on our own what pedagogy might have been behind this giant sheer volume, we must align the material in order so that each concept will serve as a preamble for the next one, and all key terms then will be logically connected to the main scheme. It seems that after sorting out all major concepts from the minor key terms, we are aiming to arrive at the issue of ideological, society based, differences within one giant infrastructure called the internet. After examining most ideologically conflicting dimensions, we must derive a method that will keep catalytic reactions between those most extreme ideologies under control. This method, I assume, should include political, policy-based, and technological instruments. In order to build these instruments we must rely on our predecessors whose remarkable writings we have at our disposal. As some of you have already noticed that some of the writings are of a high caliber and some are of a low and average; nevertheless, they do contribute substance to the sphere of the course. It is therefore crucial to distinguish a high caliber conceptual pieces of writing from the low or mediocre type of writings. Then, we should align them in the right sequence so that we can apply our reasoning, not only memory. I guess this is as far as I should go because as we know, some of the writers are working at the Berkman Center - the host of the course. It will be unethical from my side to point out on the perplexity they may create.

	Perhaps for those who has enough imagination, imagine that after all readings that we read so far, we are exposed only to several stones on a giant planet in the giant universe with many other planets connected to it. There are terabytes of books on the net. There is so much to read about and discover. Take the DARPA ~~internet~~ archive alone [http://www.darpa.mil/internetbibliography.html] or the internet society resources [http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml] and they will extrapolate our horizons even farther. If we will search the archives of other countries, we would have not enough lifetime to read everything that is equally worth reading as our class material. It is important however, to have a wise conventional opinion not only about the modern concepts, but also about classic definitions, and Wisdom of Crowds by Surowiecki is an excellent emitter of the "old school" discoveries. His book ''Wisdom of Crowds'' so as ''Wealth of the Networks'' is built on the original concepts he interprets. In the book ''Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'' the Scottish journalist Charles Mackay writes about the first conglomerates of people, not connected with internet, but infatuated by the same idea of rapid enrichment through the stock market. In the first hundred pages author describes the most devastating financial bubbles and schemes instigated by John Law, the son of the banker and a creative financier, who in his ''Proposals and Reasons for Constituting a Council of Trade'', which he presented to the British Parliament, proposed to issue a loan-for-shares based instrument which has failed a number of times and at several countries due to the rapid and large demand for one type of shares issued for sale. If we think of a stock buyers as of the web sight users, we can understand better the concept of the collective action and decision making process. Surowiecki, of course, makes an excellent example of the bias in the herd instinct when he describes the authority bias in the decision by investigative group of the shuttle's catastrophe and in the coordination of other groups of people driven by the common goal. I am confident that the experts opinion and the seer-sucker theory is in value when the majority is trying to think. It is exactly what people are trying to do in this course: people are trying to find a cognizable way to comprehend the material by cooperating and coordinating within the group. Nevertheless, I personally believe that ''Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'' is by default the strongest platform to base our understanding both of the concepts of the internet and of the digital economics of the society. --[[User:VladimirK\|VladimirK]] 01:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)		Perhaps for those who has enough imagination, imagine that after all readings that we read so far, we are exposed only to several stones on a giant planet in the giant universe with many other planets connected to it. There are terabytes of books on the net. There is so much to read about and discover. Take the DARPA Internet Program archive alone [http://www.darpa.mil/internetbibliography.html] or the internet society resources [http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml] and they will extrapolate our horizons even farther. If we will search the archives of other countries, we would have not enough lifetime to read everything that is equally worth reading as our class material. It is important however, to have a wise conventional opinion not only about the modern concepts, but also about classic definitions, and Wisdom of Crowds by Surowiecki is an excellent emitter of the "old school" discoveries. His book ''Wisdom of Crowds'' so as ''Wealth of the Networks'' is built on the original concepts he interprets. In the book ''Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'' the Scottish journalist Charles Mackay writes about the first conglomerates of people, not connected with internet, but infatuated by the same idea of rapid enrichment through the stock market. In the first hundred pages author describes the most devastating financial bubbles and schemes instigated by John Law, the son of the banker and a creative financier, who in his ''Proposals and Reasons for Constituting a Council of Trade'', which he presented to the British Parliament, proposed to issue a loan-for-shares based instrument which has failed a number of times and at several countries due to the rapid and large demand for one type of shares issued for sale. If we think of a stock buyers as of the web sight users, we can understand better the concept of the collective action and decision making process. Surowiecki, of course, makes an excellent example of the bias in the herd instinct when he describes the authority bias in the decision by investigative group of the shuttle's catastrophe and in the coordination of other groups of people driven by the common goal. I am confident that the experts opinion and the seer-sucker theory is in value when the majority is trying to think. It is exactly what people are trying to do in this course: people are trying to find a cognizable way to comprehend the material by cooperating and coordinating within the group. Nevertheless, I personally believe that ''Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'' is by default the strongest platform to base our understanding both of the concepts of the internet and of the digital economics of the society. --[[User:VladimirK\|VladimirK]] 01:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mcforelle at 20:00, 24 February 2011

2011-02-24T20:00:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 24 February 2011
Line 165:		Line 165:
	* Ethan Zuckerman on [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/04/25/homophily-serendipity-xenophilia/ Homophily, serendipity, and xenophilia] -- an interesting response to the "silo" theory (aka homophily) we discussed in class. --[[User:RebekahHeacock\|RebekahHeacock]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)		* Ethan Zuckerman on [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/04/25/homophily-serendipity-xenophilia/ Homophily, serendipity, and xenophilia] -- an interesting response to the "silo" theory (aka homophily) we discussed in class. --[[User:RebekahHeacock\|RebekahHeacock]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
	* Here is a link from yesterday's New York Times, http://nyti.ms/fBtKpz more wikileaks this time referring to the Qaddafi family’s exploits [[User:FMRR\|FMRR]] 16:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)		* Here is a link from yesterday's New York Times, http://nyti.ms/fBtKpz more wikileaks this time referring to the Qaddafi family’s exploits [[User:FMRR\|FMRR]] 16:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
			* Interesting talk tonight (24 Feb), open to the public from what I can tell. Video will be posted afterwards, if you can't make it:
			** [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/online_news.html#abstract ONLINE NEWS: Public Sphere or Echo Chamber?] - 5-7pm, [http://whereis.mit.edu/?go=3 3-270] ~~[[User:mcforelle\|mcforelle]] 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

FMRR: /* Links */

2011-02-24T16:02:25Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 24 February 2011
Line 164:		Line 164:
	** [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/apple-offers-subscriptions-for-all-ipad-publications/?partner=rss&emc=rss Apple Offers Subscriptions for Apps]: JEREMY W. PETERS and MIGUEL HELFT, NYTimes		** [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/apple-offers-subscriptions-for-all-ipad-publications/?partner=rss&emc=rss Apple Offers Subscriptions for Apps]: JEREMY W. PETERS and MIGUEL HELFT, NYTimes
	* Ethan Zuckerman on [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/04/25/homophily-serendipity-xenophilia/ Homophily, serendipity, and xenophilia] -- an interesting response to the "silo" theory (aka homophily) we discussed in class. --[[User:RebekahHeacock\|RebekahHeacock]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)		* Ethan Zuckerman on [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/04/25/homophily-serendipity-xenophilia/ Homophily, serendipity, and xenophilia] -- an interesting response to the "silo" theory (aka homophily) we discussed in class. --[[User:RebekahHeacock\|RebekahHeacock]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
			* Here is a link from yesterday's New York Times, http://nyti.ms/fBtKpz more wikileaks this time referring to the Qaddafi family’s exploits [[User:FMRR\|FMRR]] 16:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Deinous: /* Class Discussion */

2011-02-23T20:43:26Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 23 February 2011
Line 150:		Line 150:

	Hai folx -----=:) In light of a seemingly negative perception of what hackers do, and also as a demonstration of positive collective action I thought that I would share a bit about a primarily European hacker group named Telecomix that recently rallied to provide low tech communications such as fax numbers, dial-up modems, and even HAM radio coms for the Egyptian people during the internet blackout days of the anti-Mubarak protests. This was a video they made at the beginning of the uprising: "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz4ECbj3dkY\| Telecomix Message to North Africa and the Middle East]". Later they were mentioned by the Electronic Frontier Foundation along with the French Data Network as organizations that provided technical workarounds and support during the black out. The EFF article can be found here: "[http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak \| Egypt's Internet Blackout Highlights Danger of Weak Links Usefulness of Quick Links"]. Telecomix is currently providing a variety of similar technologies for the people of Libya. They are about the datalove and keeping it free and flowing. (:=----- kthxbai [[User: deinous\|deinous]]		Hai folx -----=:) In light of a seemingly negative perception of what hackers do, and also as a demonstration of positive collective action I thought that I would share a bit about a primarily European hacker group named Telecomix that recently rallied to provide low tech communications such as fax numbers, dial-up modems, and even HAM radio coms for the Egyptian people during the internet blackout days of the anti-Mubarak protests. This was a video they made at the beginning of the uprising: "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz4ECbj3dkY\| Telecomix Message to North Africa and the Middle East]". Later they were mentioned by the Electronic Frontier Foundation along with the French Data Network as organizations that provided technical workarounds and support during the black out. The EFF article can be found here: "[http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak \| Egypt's Internet Blackout Highlights Danger of Weak Links Usefulness of Quick Links"]. Telecomix is currently providing a variety of similar technologies for the people of Libya. They are about the datalove and keeping it free and flowing. (:=----- kthxbai [[User: deinous\|deinous]]


			Hai again! In class last night I had mentioned the two different approaches that Microsoft and Sony are taking toward hackers hacking their gaming consoles. In a recent Mashable article, "[http://mashable.com/2011/02/21/kinect-sdk/ \|Xbox Kinect vs. Sony PS3: How 2 Companies Handle Hacking]", they described these approaches. Microsoft is encouraging hackers to innovate and push the limitations of their new motion sensoring peripheral, Kinect, by hosting hacking contests and the upcoming commercial release of a developing platform, SDK, for hacker to use. About a week after the public release of the Kinect last fall there was a huge buzz in the gaming community that the Kinect had been hacked to play World of Warcraft. Being an avid member of the WoW community I was very excited about this and searched to find out what the hack did. As it turned out the Institute for Creative Technology of USC had created a customizable user interface and had applied it to the game controls for WoW. The result and explanation of this inspiring hack can be seen in their YouTube video here: "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62wj8eJ0FHw \| World of Warcraft with Microsoft Kinect using FAAST and OpenNI']. There is also already a commercially release development platform for creating homebrewed Xbox360 games, and again, there are many hosted contests for talented hackers. Conversely, companies like Sony do not encourage hacking their systems, and are currently suing George Holt for jailbreaking the PS3 for homebrew game design. This closed attitude raises the important question: if you purchased the product, why are you not allowed to do with it as you please? Recently, at least in the common practice of jailbreaking Apple's iPhones and iPads for open development, and unapproved software from Apple, it is not illegal to do so and will not result in lawsuits or terminations of your phone and data services. It does however void Apple warranties. I personally am in support of the "you buy it, you can do what you want with it" argument, and look forward to more companies adopting attitudes and policies much like Microsoft has with their releasing of commercial developing tools that promote the generative process of creating new hardware uses and homebrew game design. If these consoles and gadgets remain so closed I agree with Zittrain that there will become a stagnation with in creative technology. ---=:) kthxbai [[User:Deinous\|Deinous]] 20:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

	== Links ==		== Links ==