Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2012-05-09T04:11:55Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:Upload Upload file]

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Title:
*Link:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Submissions===

'''Name''': BSK342
'''Title''': Alternative Online Destinations: A Sample Review and Empirical Analysis.
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Alternative_Online_Destinations_-_A_Sample_Review_and_Empirical_Analysis.pdf
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 14:35, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
'''Name''': Stefan C 
'''Title''': Convergence of Social Media and Finance 
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_4_Open_Finance_and_StockTwits_2%281%29.docx‎
[[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 17:11, 8 May 2012 (EDT)
 

 
'''Name''': Abby Bergman 
'''Title''': Pinterest: Image Appropriation Norms 
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Bergman_Pinterest_Final_Project.pdf‎ 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 17:11, 8 May 2012 (EDT)
 

'''Name''': Samantha Zakuto
'''Title''': Conduct Unbecoming: Four Case Studies on the Use of Facebook by Public Educators
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:SamanthaZakutoFinalProject.pdf
--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 11:35, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Harvard212
'''Title''': Believability: In Evolving Communication Dynamics
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/LSTUFinalSGunawan.pdf
--[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 12:23EST, 8 May 2012

'''Name''': Carl Fleming
'''Title''': Khan Academy: Will Online Education Revolutionize (Or Simply Marginalize)
Education for Developing Nations
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Carl_Fleming_Final_Project.docx
--[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 17:12, 6 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: James Harris
Title: “Decentralization of Grassroots Movements in the Internet Age”
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:James_Harris_Final_Project_FINAL.pdf
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 13:01, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Jeff Kimble
'''Title''': Amazon Awaits Your Feedback
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/JK_Final_Paper2.docx [[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 22:32, 7 May 2012 (EDT

'''Name''': Emanuele Dominici
'''Title''': America's Indirect Support of Terrorism: Jihadi Websites
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Emanuele_LSTU_E-120_Final_Paper.pdf
--[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 07:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Alex Lloyd-Evans
'''Title''': Social Structure and Hierarchy on the Cracked.com Writer’s Forums
'''Link''': Paper: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Alex_LE_Final_Paper.docx Data Tables: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:AlexLE_Research_Paper_Stats.xlsx [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 13:40, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Louis Celli
'''Title''': The Android Revolution - Will Consumers Continue to be Satisfied Living in a Box?
'''Link''': Paper: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Assignment_4_CELLI_Final.pdf
[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 13:59, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Jennifer Lopez 
'''Title''': The New Era of Online Activism: Why The Future of Power Is Us 
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_FINAL_THESIS.pdf 
[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 14:56, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

'''Name''': Manny Valerio 
'''Title''': Internet Fame 
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Final_Project_Internet_Fame.pdf 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 16:05, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Title: Sharing and Collaboration on Pinterest 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-Berkman-Assignment5-DitkowskyAlexis.doc 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 14:42, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Nicholas Thibodeau 
Title: Your Membership is: (ANONYMOUS) 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Thibodeau_Final_Project.pdf 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 16:08, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Christopher Mejo 
Title: Online Education 411: Key Issues in Open Course Ware 
Link: http://ocw.drupalgardens.com/ 
[[User:chrism|chrism]] 16:11, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name:Julia Brav 
Title: Moderator Behavior on Ask MetaFilter 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Final_Paper.pdf 
(Please ignore all the extra uploads. Sorry!)
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:33, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Hope Solomon 
Title:Twitter: How Local Leaders Reach Constituents 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Hope_Solomon_Final_1..pdf 
[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 16:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Mike Brant
Title: Do Online Movements Really Move Youth Movements?
Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Mike_Brant_Are_Youth_Movements_Moved_by_Online_Communities_Final_Project.doc[[User:Mike|Mike]] 17:28, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
'''Name''': Yerzhan Temirbulatov
'''Title''': Takedown of Megaupload and endless war on piracy
'''Link''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Yerzhan_TemirbulatovFINAL.docx
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 17:31, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Gregorian Hawke 
Title: Twentymine: The Making of a Successful Gaming Computer 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Final_v1.0_%28-Gregorian%29.odt 
Time: 22:00, May 8 2012 (EST)

 
Name: David Taber 
Title: BYO Coffee: Creating Space for Local Conversations on the World-Wide Web 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Final_project_draft.odt 
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 22:11, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Brendan Long and Quynh Dang 
Title: Comparing Q&A Websites: WikiAnswers & Yahoo! Answers 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:Final_Project_-_Long_and_Dang.doc 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 23:58, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 
Name: Fabian Celis J 
Title: The Open University Online Community 
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:FabianCelisJ_Final_Project_LSTU_E-120.pdf 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:11, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

File:FabianCelisJ Final Project LSTU E-120.pdf

2012-05-09T03:56:47Z

Fabiancelisj:

Extra Credit Submissions

2012-05-02T02:34:09Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 1.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade.

Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give.

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

Name:Fabian Celis 
Project Title: The Open University Online Community 
Link to the Podcast: [http://archive.org/details/TheOpenUniversityOnlineCommunity] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 22:34, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Sab 
Project Title: Free Online High-Quality Education: The Next Revolution on Internet? The Blue Ocean Strategy 
Link to the screencast: [http://www.screenr.com/7EC8] 
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 18:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Project Title: A Turkish Teacher's Perspective to School Administrators Limiting Facebook Usage 
Link to YouTube Video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cfjKSdV8hE&feature=youtu.be] 
--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 14:39, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Project Title: America’s Aid to Terrorism: Supporting Jihadi Websites 
Extra Credit Link:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/File:LSTU_E-120_Extra_Credit.pptx ] 
Link to YouTube Video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppk9sGu-zf8&feature=youtu.be] 

Name: Julia Brav 
I would like to present my paper on May 8. I'll be discussing my paper by using visual examples of situations on AskMetaFilter. [[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 10:22, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

The Wikileaks Case

2012-04-24T19:58:17Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 24'''

In this class, we will address many of the issues surrounding the Wikileaks case. We will explore the technical, legal, regulatory, ethical and normative elements of the events leading up to and following the massive leak of US government documents made available via Wikileaks. The case touches upon and exemplifies many of the concepts and questions that are presented in the course and will offers us the opportunity to reflect, refine and consolidate the changes and challenges of digital media.

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/TheWikiLeaksIncident.pdf Case Study: The Wikileaks Incident]

== Additional Resources==

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 24: The Wikileaks Case
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have enjoyed reading this case. I did not know about the all thing,letters,etc. It is interesting to queston abouut which model is the best perfect free information or controlled or totally kept secret. For Assange, the only limit seems to be the life of people involved. However, the question further : in what are they involved. Is the cause fair? And then comes a moral judgement, non objective and maybe dangerous.

The other question is: Is the disclosure very interesting for most of the human being on earth? Does that really matter?

--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 15:38, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Fascinating reading, really looking forward to our discussion in class. Also great to see a step-by-step description of the chain of events that took place and tying in Anonymous' efforts of pro-wikileaks internet activism especially in the case of Aaron Barr/HB Gary Federal. Brutal! On a side note, noticed Anonymous publicly posting a decompiled research copy of the Stuxnet virus was discussed. I'm sure many of you might have already seen/heard of the following story on 60 Minutes however, thought it was quite intriguing and will post here for you all to review [[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7400904n&tag=mncol;lst;10 Stuxnet: Computer Worm Opens New Era of Warfare]][[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 12:19, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

The WikiLeaks case gained my immediate attention the day it started publishing secret material and therefore reading about it again is still fascinating in my opinion. I choose to look at the WIkiLeaks case in two different ways: on one side it is amazing how so much top secret information concerning the entire world was able to be publicly shared, and the entire legal process with its jurisdictional problems following the release of such information, and on the other side the incompetence on America’s part in giving access to top secret information to a clearly mentally ill soldier and then not being able to track the source until a convicted hacker in touch with Manning reported the information to the FBI. What I found to be really interesting and positive of the whole scandal was the part concerning the democratic rebellions following the leak of sensitive information concerning Arab countries. Its only thanks to public information that citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Libya etc. were able to understand that it was time to change the way they were ruled and overturn the tyrannical regimes. Information is indeed the future and the same Assange stated that the reason for releasing the information on his part was because “a race commenced between the governments who need to be reformed and the people who can reform them using the material.” [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 12:10, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@JennLopez I completely agree, I thought the organization and explanation of the Wikileaks case was great. I particularly enjoyed the letters between Julian Assange and the Department of State. @Emanuele I also agree that the section about the Arab countries was interesting- to think that Assange in some way helped start the Arab Spring is incredible. Looking forward listening to the class discussion as well.--[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 12:39, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

The Wikileaks case poses the interesting question of reporting versus national security, a question that I doubt would have been nearly as incendiary prior to 9/11. While reporters of the past have committed themselves to providing the public with all information they learn of (and therefore it is no mystery that Assange likens himself as a reporter), the turbulent nature of foreign policy (particularly in the Middle East) does raise ethical questions on what content should be published, and whether the consequences of publishing such information will lead to innocents or government officials being harmed. What was particularly problematic is that there was anecdotal evidence that Assange had originally decided on publishing the Manning files without redactions, and that his co-workers had to convince him otherwise. For a single man to have that much power to affect the lives of many agents in the field is disconcerting.

Furthermore, the “insurance file” that Assange had, and which he would publish if he was the subject of an investigation, added a new wrinkle to the concept of reporters relying on the dissemination of information rather than using information as legal protection that could jeopardize national security.

In terms of moral responsibility and security implications, Wikileaks reminds me of the photos that were taken a couple years ago of American soldiers photographing the body parts of dead Afghan soldiers. Given the hostile reaction to the Koran book-burning scandal, the news outlet who released these pictures almost certainly would have expected that additional American soldiers would be killed from outrage and reprisal and that those soldiers may otherwise have been spared had those photos not been released. These ethical problems are why wikileaks and Assange continue to be controversial.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 12:44, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

What a great summary of the Wikileaks events, really interesting. Assange's devotion to his own personal power/personality definitely made the supposedly altruistic nature of his releases a lot more suspect and worrisome. Reading through these events again I was reminded how impressed I was with the NYTimes, the Guardian, and the other major papers in how they handled this. They really seem to have done the best they could at thinking through an extremely difficult situation and attempting to both honor their responsibilities as journalists and maintain a sense of responsibility for the results of their actions. This is definitely something we lose when the anonymous internet becomes the method of disseminating controversial information or news; no specially trained journalists are thinking through the implications of releasing each part of a story. That lack of filter can have serious consequences. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 13:05, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Interesting study on the Wikileaks events. I wonder what Assange's intent truly was with the letter to the State Department? Would he really remove per their request? Was it maneuvering for the U.S. to mistakenly give up the rest of the information. I'm guessing Saudi intentions to bomb Iran put people in harm's way on a more national scale --- more than just individual people. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 13:33, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

It just amazes me how vulnerable and insecure data can be, as evidenced by Anonymous’s hacking and humiliation of HBGary Federal and Aaron Barr. The incident also proved to be embarrassing to the US government as well, as it was clearly ill-equipped to stop WikiLeaks, hacktivists, and jounals from publicizing sensitive data. Is this the way it must be to have open information and transparent government? @ Emanuele I also find it interesting that WikiLeaks allowed for revolutions to occur in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 14:01, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great article summarizing the WikiLeaks timeline of events. As someone with a Top Secret clearance I found the information on Manning’s background really disturbing. The military has an obligation to monitor those with access to classified material. The reading also magnified the discontent between an editor-in-chief for a newspaper vs. online journalism in regards to releasing sensitive information that could potentially cause harm to individuals. Do online journalists have less of an obligation to protect sources? Looking forward to our discussion in class tonight.
I also saw this article on CNN: Manning switches lawyers http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/justice/manning-military-hearing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 --[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:04, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@Qdang I agree, data is extremely vulnerable. The Government has to take into account retaliation from hackers when trying to impose rules and regulations.--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:34, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Very interesting case study. It is great to have the players, timeline and full summary of events in one place to truly see the imapact of this event. Of greatest interest to me (like Qdang mentioned above) is the fact that WikiLeaks appears to have helped set the stage for revolutions to occur in northern Africa and the Middle East. I look forward to the discussion. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 14:45, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Great article and great summary of events as they occurred. While I was aware of many things that occurred that time, I wasn't aware of few aspects on Wiki until now. Also, I am surprised how easy Top Secret information like that can be leaked and hacked into, which raises questions of how secure data like that is. I was also surprised that that out of all these websites including government ones, Amazon was the only one that could not be hacked. This also raises questions why US government websites can be so easily hacked when compared to Amazon. Shouldn't it be the other way round? While the material did spread, I think US government did a decent job at suppressing that information from going all out. The article also showed great difference between paper journalism and internet journalism. Given that many Wikileaks employees didn't like Assange's stand of releasing such information, it seems that Assange was doing everything possible to get as much media attention as possible even if it meant his own downfall. Great article, and looking forward to class discussions.
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 15:23, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Besides the very good explanation of the facts in a brief and concise way in this article, what I most like from the Wikileaks case is that it covers many topics we have been discussing in class. We saw the importance of redacting online when we addressed regulation speech online. I agree when the article explains that The New York Times and The Guardian newspapers blamed Wikileaks for releasing the cables without revising how they should be written, putting at risk several people, including the US forces. This was the reason Jester did hacktivism for good, in order to support the privacy of the people. Also we can see how important normativity is on the Internet, and in this case we see another example of these regulations: the ECPA Subpoenas the government has used to access the accounts of important implicated persons in the Wikileaks problem. Finally, we covered collective decision and democracy in past classes, and what more impressed me from the case was that the Tunisia protests began due to some of the Wikileaks’ cables about the Tunisian government. Therefore, as it is stated in the article, part of the Arab Spring was triggered by the information spread through the cables of Wikileaks. Unbelievable! Looking forward to discussing this case[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 15:58, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

== Links ==

Assignment 4 Submissions

2012-04-18T03:38:51Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on April 17. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

'''Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

'''If you'd like peer feedback on an updated version of your rough draft, you can submit it here: [[Assignment 4 Peer Review]]'''

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment4.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. Please follow the format below:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Fabian Celis|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_4_Fabian_Celis.doc}}
--[[User:Fabian Celis|Fabian Celis]] 23:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Sab|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_4.doc.pdf}}
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 22:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

/*********************************************************************************

/*Name: BSK342

/*Description: Assignment 4: Rough Rough Rough Draft

/*Link to Outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Bsk342_Assignment_4.pdf

/*[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

/*********************************************************************************/

{{AssignmentInfo|Stefan Cheplick|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/OpenFinance_and_StockTwits_Stefan_Cheplick_Internet_and_Societ.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Harvard212|Assignment 4: Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTUAssignment4SGunawan.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Jeff Kimble|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Jeff_Kimble_Rough_Draft2.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Alex Lloyd-Evans|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Alex_Lloyd-Evans_Assignment_4_%28Rough_Draft%29.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Samantha Zakuto|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment4SamanthaZakuto.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Emanuele Dominici|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_4.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|James Harris|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_-_Final_Project_Draft.doc}}--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Alexis Ditkowsky|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-Berkman-Assignment4-DitkowskyAlexis_%281%29.pdf}}
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 17:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Julia Brav|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/JBrav_LSTU_Final_Paper_Draft.pdf}}[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 19:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Jennifer Lopez|Assignment 4 Project Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_4.pdf}}[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Brendan Long / Quynh Dang|Assignment 4 Project Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/ResearchProjectDraft.pdf}}[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]]
19:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Yerzhan Temirbulatov|Assignment 4: Final Paper Rough Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Yerzhan_Temirbulatov_FinalDraft.doc}}
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 20:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Hope Solomon|Assignment 4 Project
Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Hope_Solomon_Assignment_4.doc}}
--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 21:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Carl Fleming|Assignment 4 Project
Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fleming_Assignment_4.doc}}
--[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 21:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Marjolein Siegenthaler|Assignment 4 Project
Draft|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_4_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc‎}}
[[[User:MSS|MSS]] 22:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)]

{{AssignmentInfo|Nicholas Thibodeau|Assignment 4 Project Draft
|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Thibodeau_Assignment_4.pdf‎}}
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 23:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|David Taber|Assignment 4 Project Draft
|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Final_project_draft.odt}}
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 01:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Assignment 4 Fabian Celis.doc

2012-04-18T03:31:56Z

Fabiancelisj:

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2012-04-17T17:15:10Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 17'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment 4: Rough Draft and Bonus AV Credit|Assignment 4 due]]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 17: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article in Slate that's basically a profile of "_why" (a well known programmer/sort of folk hero in that online community before he disappeared off the web one day) but also goes into the problem of of the "Little Coder's Predicament" quite a bit since that was one of the main things _why was interested in. That predicament is the lack of accessibility to the code behind the devices we use so often; it is incredibly easy and intuitive to play Angry Birds on your phone or use Excel on your laptop, but hard (and getting harder) to learn how to access and manipulate the code that creates and alters those sorts of programs.

This is an issue that has come up quite a bit in class, and I thought the author does a good job of explaining some neat tools for the layman to use to get into programming. The article is a fun read and touches on a lot of issues of public v. private online, identity online, the importance of being a creator and not just a consumer, etc. Thought you all might enjoy!

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/03/ruby_ruby_on_rails_and__why_the_disappearance_of_one_of_the_world_s_most_beloved_computer_programmers_.html
-[[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 22:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Off topic for this week's class but I saw this article hit the Washington Post and thought it was an interesting read for those interested in Copyright and internet sales.http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/thai-students-money-making-effort-at-center-of-supreme-court-copyright-case/2012/04/16/gIQAJHqQLT_story.html?hpid=z3
--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 18:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This week's readings brings up an interesting point on national safety. Government agencies other organizations could stand to do a better job notifying the public via the internet when national disasters arise. In times of disaster, notifying the public via internet alerts seems like a very efficient way to spread information quickly. -- [[ --[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 11:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)]]

This week’s articles were like always very interesting and thought-stimulating. I really enjoyed reading the first article concerning broadband and the US government’s plan back in 2009 to make it accessible to all Americans. Even though many criticized the fact that at the time 100 million Americans didn’t have broadband, we must not forget the huge improvements that took place in the last two decades. I personally grew up with no broadband and with a computer which would run Windows 3.1 so from the ‘80s until now I personally see a huge improvement and I believe it is just a matter of time that the whole world will have broadband and at that point a newer technology will become available. The second article was by far the most fascinating. I had recently watched a documentary on technological advances and healthcare, and how easy it would be to do most things via internet like sending results and interacting with doctors. For what concerns education, I believe we have started making some good progress only recently and not very many institutions offer online learning. Homeland Security is definitely the most important aspect which we should invest in, in my opinion and we are far behind many of our European and Asian colleagues. The third article is exactly what I was talking about in terms of future technological advancements and it explains both plans and practices of countries other than the United States. The article on Net Neutrality was also pretty interesting and it perfectly explained its purpose in a simplistic way, which is appreciated by someone like myself who isn’t exactly a computer expert. The article on Internet Freedom has a very amusing title and I must say it is perfect for that topic. I still think it is very difficult to talk about internet freedom and government intrusion and I believe we will still be talking about this in the near future. The YouTube video about Hands Off the Internet was again in my opinion an amusing and simple way of portraying and conveying a message and I believe this to be a good way of doing so. Overall Governmental intrusion is and will be a serious and durable debate in the future. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 13:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles for this week certainly brings to light the relationship between the government and broadband providers, and government’s particular interests in expanding and regulating broadband. I found Thierer’s article on these regulations to be interesting, particularly when he indicates that “we shouldn’t allow the cyber-collectivists to sell us their version of “freedom” in which markets are instead constantly reshaped through incessant regulatory interventions.” It is always nice to see this age-old political argument spill over into broadband management. Certainly the government takes the internet seriously and I think that their overlying effort to make broadband accessible to everyone is noble back in 2009. As the internet has shaped our lives in many different ways, it would be hard to imagine having no access to the internet. I do agree with the point that the internet has certainly improved by leaps and bounds over the years.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Emanuel, the Hands Off video and the Net Neutrality website explain in a very simple way what’s going on with the Internet; I enjoyed both of them. Also I think it is true that the Corporations and “Save the Internet” campaign want the government to take control of the Internet. The main net neutrality issues then are who should control the Internet: the people, or the government? And who should pay: the big corporations, or us?

The articles were also very interesting and touched important themes. The Broadband Plan article mentions that the broadband plan will improve the healthcare system, the energy and environment, and the education system. I think we have all experienced the benefits of improvements on technology, not too far our distance class is possible due to technology enhancement. As the article states, this creates economic opportunity, and government performance and civic engagement. With regard to the former, I like the idea that it would make the government more open and transparent! And with the latter that it will increase public safety and homeland security. In this way it is very important the broadband for mobile devices. Also it will ensure patients to have control over their healthcare data; I specially like this one because one day I went to have some health tests in my country and within a few days I could access them via the Internet.

The presentation on the Broadband Plan was very specific in showing the gaps that prevent the most efficient usage of the broadband. It also provided a framework of recommendations for each area in which broadband is used, and the potential savings achieved. Also, I like the idea that better technology will allow us to help prevent traffic accidents and potentially save energy. I think we still have a lot of work to do but in the long-term I’m positive these improvements will be possible.

Finally, in the Berkam Center article, it is very interesting the approach used, in which learning from other countries like Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and South Korea was the center of the study. What I most liked from this article was the idea that ''the next generation broadband user experience is built upon not only the deployment of high capacity networks, but also the creation of ubiquitous seamless connectivity''. This is because we are now experiencing more availability of connectivity, but quality, speed and more places with Wi-Fi are still matters of improvement.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 17:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2012-04-17T17:14:16Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 17'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment 4: Rough Draft and Bonus AV Credit|Assignment 4 due]]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 17: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article in Slate that's basically a profile of "_why" (a well known programmer/sort of folk hero in that online community before he disappeared off the web one day) but also goes into the problem of of the "Little Coder's Predicament" quite a bit since that was one of the main things _why was interested in. That predicament is the lack of accessibility to the code behind the devices we use so often; it is incredibly easy and intuitive to play Angry Birds on your phone or use Excel on your laptop, but hard (and getting harder) to learn how to access and manipulate the code that creates and alters those sorts of programs.

This is an issue that has come up quite a bit in class, and I thought the author does a good job of explaining some neat tools for the layman to use to get into programming. The article is a fun read and touches on a lot of issues of public v. private online, identity online, the importance of being a creator and not just a consumer, etc. Thought you all might enjoy!

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/03/ruby_ruby_on_rails_and__why_the_disappearance_of_one_of_the_world_s_most_beloved_computer_programmers_.html
-[[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 22:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Off topic for this week's class but I saw this article hit the Washington Post and thought it was an interesting read for those interested in Copyright and internet sales.http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/thai-students-money-making-effort-at-center-of-supreme-court-copyright-case/2012/04/16/gIQAJHqQLT_story.html?hpid=z3
--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 18:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This week's readings brings up an interesting point on national safety. Government agencies other organizations could stand to do a better job notifying the public via the internet when national disasters arise. In times of disaster, notifying the public via internet alerts seems like a very efficient way to spread information quickly. -- [[ --[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 11:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)]]

This week’s articles were like always very interesting and thought-stimulating. I really enjoyed reading the first article concerning broadband and the US government’s plan back in 2009 to make it accessible to all Americans. Even though many criticized the fact that at the time 100 million Americans didn’t have broadband, we must not forget the huge improvements that took place in the last two decades. I personally grew up with no broadband and with a computer which would run Windows 3.1 so from the ‘80s until now I personally see a huge improvement and I believe it is just a matter of time that the whole world will have broadband and at that point a newer technology will become available. The second article was by far the most fascinating. I had recently watched a documentary on technological advances and healthcare, and how easy it would be to do most things via internet like sending results and interacting with doctors. For what concerns education, I believe we have started making some good progress only recently and not very many institutions offer online learning. Homeland Security is definitely the most important aspect which we should invest in, in my opinion and we are far behind many of our European and Asian colleagues. The third article is exactly what I was talking about in terms of future technological advancements and it explains both plans and practices of countries other than the United States. The article on Net Neutrality was also pretty interesting and it perfectly explained its purpose in a simplistic way, which is appreciated by someone like myself who isn’t exactly a computer expert. The article on Internet Freedom has a very amusing title and I must say it is perfect for that topic. I still think it is very difficult to talk about internet freedom and government intrusion and I believe we will still be talking about this in the near future. The YouTube video about Hands Off the Internet was again in my opinion an amusing and simple way of portraying and conveying a message and I believe this to be a good way of doing so. Overall Governmental intrusion is and will be a serious and durable debate in the future. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 13:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles for this week certainly brings to light the relationship between the government and broadband providers, and government’s particular interests in expanding and regulating broadband. I found Thierer’s article on these regulations to be interesting, particularly when he indicates that “we shouldn’t allow the cyber-collectivists to sell us their version of “freedom” in which markets are instead constantly reshaped through incessant regulatory interventions.” It is always nice to see this age-old political argument spill over into broadband management. Certainly the government takes the internet seriously and I think that their overlying effort to make broadband accessible to everyone is noble back in 2009. As the internet has shaped our lives in many different ways, it would be hard to imagine having no access to the internet. I do agree with the point that the internet has certainly improved by leaps and bounds over the years.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Emanuel, the Hands Off video and the Net Neutrality website explain in a very simple way what’s going on with the Internet; I enjoyed both of them. Also I think it is true that the Corporations and “Save the Internet” campaign want the government to take control of the Internet. The main net neutrality issues then are who should control the Internet: the people, or the government? And who should pay: the big corporations, or us?

The articles were also very interesting and touched important themes. The Broadband Plan article mentions that the broadband plan will improve the healthcare system, the energy and environment, and the education system. I think we have all experienced the benefits of improvements on technology, not too far our distance class is possible due to technology enhancement. As the article states, this creates economic opportunity, and government performance and civic engagement. With regard to the former, I like the idea that it would make the government more open and transparent! And with the latter that it will increase public safety and homeland security. In this way it is very important the broadband for mobile devices. Also it will ensure patients to have control over their healthcare data; I specially like this one because one day I went to have some health tests in my country and within a few days I could access them via the Internet.

The presentation on the Broadband Plan was very specific in showing the gaps that prevent the most efficient usage of the broadband. It also provided a framework of recommendations for each area in which broadband is used, and the potential savings achieved. Also, I like the idea that better technology will allow us to help prevent traffic accidents and potentially save energy. I think we still have a lot of work to do but in the long-term I’m positive these improvements will be possible.

Finally, in the Berkam Center article, it is very interesting the approach used, in which learning from other countries like Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and South Korea was the center of the study. What I most liked from this article was the idea that ''the next generation broadband user experience is built upon not only the deployment of high capacity networks, but also the creation of ubiquitous seamless connectivity''. This is because we are now experiencing more availability of connectivity, but quality, speed and more places with Wi-Fi are still matters of improvements.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 17:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2012-04-17T17:10:28Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 17'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment 4: Rough Draft and Bonus AV Credit|Assignment 4 due]]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 17: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article in Slate that's basically a profile of "_why" (a well known programmer/sort of folk hero in that online community before he disappeared off the web one day) but also goes into the problem of of the "Little Coder's Predicament" quite a bit since that was one of the main things _why was interested in. That predicament is the lack of accessibility to the code behind the devices we use so often; it is incredibly easy and intuitive to play Angry Birds on your phone or use Excel on your laptop, but hard (and getting harder) to learn how to access and manipulate the code that creates and alters those sorts of programs.

This is an issue that has come up quite a bit in class, and I thought the author does a good job of explaining some neat tools for the layman to use to get into programming. The article is a fun read and touches on a lot of issues of public v. private online, identity online, the importance of being a creator and not just a consumer, etc. Thought you all might enjoy!

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/03/ruby_ruby_on_rails_and__why_the_disappearance_of_one_of_the_world_s_most_beloved_computer_programmers_.html
-[[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 22:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Off topic for this week's class but I saw this article hit the Washington Post and thought it was an interesting read for those interested in Copyright and internet sales.http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/thai-students-money-making-effort-at-center-of-supreme-court-copyright-case/2012/04/16/gIQAJHqQLT_story.html?hpid=z3
--[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 18:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This week's readings brings up an interesting point on national safety. Government agencies other organizations could stand to do a better job notifying the public via the internet when national disasters arise. In times of disaster, notifying the public via internet alerts seems like a very efficient way to spread information quickly. -- [[ --[[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 11:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)]]

This week’s articles were like always very interesting and thought-stimulating. I really enjoyed reading the first article concerning broadband and the US government’s plan back in 2009 to make it accessible to all Americans. Even though many criticized the fact that at the time 100 million Americans didn’t have broadband, we must not forget the huge improvements that took place in the last two decades. I personally grew up with no broadband and with a computer which would run Windows 3.1 so from the ‘80s until now I personally see a huge improvement and I believe it is just a matter of time that the whole world will have broadband and at that point a newer technology will become available. The second article was by far the most fascinating. I had recently watched a documentary on technological advances and healthcare, and how easy it would be to do most things via internet like sending results and interacting with doctors. For what concerns education, I believe we have started making some good progress only recently and not very many institutions offer online learning. Homeland Security is definitely the most important aspect which we should invest in, in my opinion and we are far behind many of our European and Asian colleagues. The third article is exactly what I was talking about in terms of future technological advancements and it explains both plans and practices of countries other than the United States. The article on Net Neutrality was also pretty interesting and it perfectly explained its purpose in a simplistic way, which is appreciated by someone like myself who isn’t exactly a computer expert. The article on Internet Freedom has a very amusing title and I must say it is perfect for that topic. I still think it is very difficult to talk about internet freedom and government intrusion and I believe we will still be talking about this in the near future. The YouTube video about Hands Off the Internet was again in my opinion an amusing and simple way of portraying and conveying a message and I believe this to be a good way of doing so. Overall Governmental intrusion is and will be a serious and durable debate in the future. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 13:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles for this week certainly brings to light the relationship between the government and broadband providers, and government’s particular interests in expanding and regulating broadband. I found Thierer’s article on these regulations to be interesting, particularly when he indicates that “we shouldn’t allow the cyber-collectivists to sell us their version of “freedom” in which markets are instead constantly reshaped through incessant regulatory interventions.” It is always nice to see this age-old political argument spill over into broadband management. Certainly the government takes the internet seriously and I think that their overlying effort to make broadband accessible to everyone is noble back in 2009. As the internet has shaped our lives in many different ways, it would be hard to imagine having no access to the internet. I do agree with the point that the internet has certainly improved by leaps and bounds over the years.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Emanuel, the Hands Off video and the Net Neutrality website explain in a very simple way what’s going on with the Internet; I enjoyed both of them. Also I think it is true that the Corporations and “Save the Internet” campaign want the government to take control of the Internet. The main net neutrality issues then are who should control the Internet: the people, or the government? And who should pay: the big corporations, or us?

The articles were also very interesting and touched important themes. The Broadband Plan article mention the broadband plan will improve the healthcare system, the energy and environment, and the education system. I think we have all experienced the benefits of improvements on technology, not too far our distance class is possible due to technology enhancement. As the article states, this creates economic opportunity, and government performance and civic engagement. With regard to the former, I like the idea that it would make the government more open and transparent! And with the latter that it will increase public safety and homeland security. In this way it is very important the broadband for mobile devices. Also it will ensure patients to have control over their healthcare data; I specially like this one because one day I went to have some health tests in my country and within a few days I could access them via the Internet.

The presentation on the Broadband Plan was very specific in showing the gaps that prevent the most efficient usage of the broadband. It also provided a framework of recommendations for each area in which broadband is used, and the potential savings achieved. Also, I like the idea that better technology will allow us to help prevent traffic accidents and potentially save energy. I think we still have a lot of work to do but in the long-term I’m positive these improvements will be possible.

Finally, in the Berkam Center article, it is very interesting the approach used, in which learning from other countries like Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and South Korea was the center of the study. What I most liked from this article was the idea that the next generation broadband user experience is built upon not only the deployment of high capacity networks, but also the creation of ubiquitous seamless connectivity. This is because we are now experiencing more availability of connectivity, but quality, speed and more places with Wi-Fi are still matters of improvements.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 17:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2012-04-10T20:04:51Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 10'''

A decade ago, the Internet was widely seen as a means to diminish the power of countries to regulate the flow of ideas and information. However, we have witnessed the resurgence of national sovereignty in cyberspace, with many countries now resorting to a combination of technology, law and intimidation to reign in the spread of free speech via the Net. Often aided by the technological support of the private sector in the United States, for this class, we will debate the ethics, practicality and implications of Internet censorship.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2011/Evolving_Landscape_Internet_Control Roberts et al. Evolving Landscape of Internet Control]
* Read John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain: [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/Deibert_06_Ch05_103-122.pdf Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet]
* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf Jill York, Policing Content in the Quasi-public Sphere]
* Take a look at the [http://opennet.net/blog ONI blog]

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act DMCA 512 - the safe harbor provision]
* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns EFF's Hall of Shame]
* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/04/viacom-v-youtube-the-second-circuits-decision/ Copyhype on Viacom v. YouTube: The Second Circuit’s Decision]

== Additional Resources ==

</onlyinclude>
== Class Discussion ==
April 10: Internet and Democracy: The Sequel
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised by the numbers from the "Evolving Landscape..." reading as far as how normal people use the internet in restrictive countries. We tend to think of the internet as this powerful tool to access multicultural views and information, especially if you live in a censorious society. This neglects the fact that around 80% of the websites I use/read/visit commonly are based out of the U.S., and 99% are English-language, so why would that be substantially different for someone from China? Part of our assumption that this resource is so valuable is that people would want to read the same info we are, because it is presumably the best (and to be fair it at least quite often is, as far as the areas it actually covers). But that often is not the info most relevant to those readers.

The shockingly low % (1% at a guess by the reading) of people in China, for example, who are using circumvention tools makes a lot more sense when you realize that internal Chinese sites like youku fill the vast majority of their internet needs, and that specifically Chinese concepts and constructs like microblogging avoid censors through a much more realistic approach to political censorship for the average internet user there. This is troubling in light of the conclusion that censoring technologies may now be outstripping circumvention technologies/abilities of average internet users to avoid censorship/attack/tracking. The solution of aggressively empowering a small group of activists, who would then spread messages through the local networks, seems to me to be a good one. It does place those activists at even more risk by further singling them out though, and obviously detracts from the crowd-sourcing type benefits that are at the heart of the internet's value.

I'm looking forward to discussing in class the balance of an international company's responsibility to its shareholders to create profit and remain competitive v. its responsibility to its original nation's norms/laws/etc. v. its responsibility to to an international "human rights" type code for the internet, regardless of where it comes from or where it's serving.

There are always arguments to be made for profit above all else, and what if trying too hard to be moral lowers your profits to where an 100% immoral (in relation to these internet issues) company corners the market? Then your idealism ruined you AND actively hurt online rights, since you left the door open for someone far worse than yourself to control that chunk of the web. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In the reading The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control I agree with AlexLE that the numbers are astonishing. Besides the statistics that AlexLE already mentioned, I found it very interesting the case that China’s most effective form of Internet control has been not only shutting out foreign sites but mainly within China. The three reasons exposed there (aggressive blockage, high quality of Chinese websites and linguistic reasons, and pride and desire to use local products) make sense to me, and I really like the comparison between China and Russia about their ASNs and IP addresses, because it shows the level of control that each country has. Although compared to Russia it seems that China has a vast major control over the Internet, Russia has other types of exerting control, including the offline one, which is the particular Russia’s type of control.

I also felt dismayed with the more or less conclusion that the Governments are winning the battle in exerting control over the usage of the Internet. Nonetheless, I like the recommendations that the Berkman Center’s offers to promote open Internet and freedom of speech. I think one of these recommendations mirrors the success of the Kony2012 campaign, because when it says “focus on circumvention tools for activists” it means to me that if we want to win the battle we need to seek hubs, like in the Kony2012 campaign.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 20:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting this week to learn about the different technologies and measures the government takes to control the internet and the circumvention tools people take to by-pass filtering and blockage. Internet control is manageable in certain countries such as China and Russia due to the effectiveness of DDoS attacks and personal attacks that leave people fear retribution for speaking up against the government, and due to the challenges of circumvention tools, such as lack of access and language barrier.
I also find it interesting that Facebook’s approach to online policing is through user reporting of spam and blocking. I agree that it is difficult to bring Facebook’s content elsewhere since it is so comprehensive and generative, because its platform contains sharing images and videos, groups, and social-networking. In a way, it is a combination of Flikr, YouTube, and Twitter, which I personally so addictive.[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The first article for this week’s class was concise yet powerful and true. The internet has definitely become a very important battlefield and it can become a powerful weapon if used in certain ways. We can simply think of the number of people who read newspapers these days compared to blogs, forums and other online discussion boards where information can be, and it is very often, distorted. Other than this, the article was very useful for understanding political implications concerning the use of the internet, especially the ones that take place in Countries where freedom of speech is often denied by dictatorial governments. The Zittrain/Palfrey article was very interesting especially when depicting a hypothetical yet realistic situation at the beginning. For us westerners it is very hard to imagine what it would be like to be censored for futile reasons, or be controlled by governments and even be at risk of incarceration for writing something so harmless but fundamental like “democracy” in China. The third article was also very interesting and I personally could identify myself only with Facebook because I don’t use any other social network. What has been said is true but I believe that it can be very easy to avoid detection on Facebook if something against the rules were to take place. As the article has already said, anonymity is a very common practice on Facebook and I personally think that the Facebook staff doesn’t really spend that much time searching for irregularities, especially since they have created the “flag” option where users become a sort of citizen watch to report violations themselves. The ONI blog revealed some very attention-grabbing news about the internet but my attention was directed to the headline regarding CISPA and how people think it will become a new SOPA or PIPA. I have personally read the entire bill and I don’t think it can be considered similar at all. There have been a number of emails sent around the internet asking to sign a petition against CISPA for a series of reasons which turn out to be completely untrue, therefore one can really understand how emails, blogs and other internet tools can provide misinformation and make people believe something that isn’t true. I agree on the creation of the Safe Harbor Provision but I still think that ISPs or OSPs should also be vigilant 24/7 on what material is posted on their sites and take adequate countermeasures to stop illegal activity without waiting to actually be caught by the government or law enforcement agencies. The hall of shame was perhaps the most interesting website this week because it shows something which I am writing about in my research paper for this class and that is: Shaming ISPs in an attempt to stop illegal activities. The Viacom v. YouTube case was and still is very interesting. At first the court ruled in favor of YouTube but during the appeal it seems that both Viacom and YouTube can consider themselves victorious even though both losing something. It will be very interesting to see what happens next to this important case. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 10:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I found an interesting article on the ONI Blog titled "Iran Plans to Implement 'Clean Internet' by August 2012." That article summarizes, essentially, how the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology in Iran plans to soon "install an Intranet that will block Gmail, Facebook, and many other websites in attempts to create a 'clean Internet'." Some have named this an "electronic curtain." In lieu of the aforementioned popular western Internet tools, the government will instead replace them with Iran Mail and Iran Search Engine. I just found it fascinating that such a large scale crackdown on western internet tools would be carried out and implemented so quickly. It appears as if they are targeting a 5 month timeframe for completion. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 10:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The readings raise frightful questions about internet censorship that almost certainly will never be resolved if we expect corporations to “regulate” themselves and establish a code of ethics as Ziittrain and Palfrey explore. The whole core belief of the free market is that all corporations enjoy benefits and focus solely on profits, meaning that profits generated through ethical sacrifices will be a leading problem unless, as was suggested, the United Nations becomes involved or countries conform.

From the ONI website, the Iranian censorship campaign is quite disturbing. Yet many countries of the world have strong business ties with this regime and therefore outside pressures to encourage free speech are essentially a moot point.

The Arizona law mentioned on the ONI website is particularly troubling because of its ambiguous language. The controversial heart of the bill reads as follows (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-04/tech/tech_web_internet-trolls-arizona-law_1_bill-internet-trolls-hateful-comments?_s=PM:TECH):

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received."

While threats and intimidation may fall into the category of bullying, such broad language raises concerns on how law enforcement can, in fact, outwardly censor the internet at their own discretion. I don’t think you have to be a civil libertarian to find the ambiguity of this bill to be troubling.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff in all of the articles and blog site. Very interesting how China uses 4 chokepoints to filter 240m IP addresses versus Russia's use of 19 for 30 million. Makes sense to see the more authoritarian country the less that seems to be required. In Russia which is seen as democratic there appears to be more effort required to censor/filter the public (youth groups, hacking). Regarding workaround tools, I would simply be afraid to even USE one in a country like China out of fear of being detected and violating law. With Iran looking to completely cut itself from the world come August, will be interesting to see what the reaction is from the public.
Regarding companies doing international business, I see the other half of the coin (even though disturbing). I can understand how a company like Google censors information for the people of China because it's services are just an extension of offline information that was regulated in the same way. The troublesome part is handing over data which leads to arrests and other "human rights violations" as we Americans see it (per the article). I think there needs to be responsibility by the party using the service and knowing when trying to circumvent the service or use it for locally known laws that there can be some persecution. Ethics go both ways when following the law. I'd like to know how countries like Egypt/Syria/Iran compare to China in terms of authoritarianism/"human rights" violations against it's people. Looking forward to discussion and any input on this board. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 18:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Until this week's readings, I didn't realize how much the "playing field" had changed in the area of online censorship and circumvention. When I visited China for a month in late 2010, I primarily stayed in Yunnan province (generally in the NW). One of the hostels I stayed at was run by a westerner who "tunneled" in super fast internet from Hong Kong (that's what he told us, anyways). I could easily and quickly access various social media sites and the web content appeared unfiltered. Most other internet connections I used while in China were SO slow, I guess because of all the filtering/censoring. Typically, I couldn't access Facebook or Blogger unless I used one of these "tunneled" connections, although I could use the Facebook app on my iPhone! While in Cairo a couple weeks prior to the protests in Tahrir square, I had no trouble accessing Blogger or Facebook. This has probably changed in light of Arab Spring, though. I imagine that a comparison of authoritarian countries would produce varied differences in cyber control, presumably having to do with how some of these countries' cyber censorship fluctuates depending on events at home. I'm sure China will implement even more austere measures this fall in anticipation of protests during the CCP's once in a decade regime change.

I am also alarmed at how willingly (according to the OpenNet article) companies like Google and Skype give information to repressive authorities. I wonder what could be done about this. It's a very complicated situation and I don't know enough about it to make a legitimate judgment. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2012-04-10T20:03:11Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 10'''

A decade ago, the Internet was widely seen as a means to diminish the power of countries to regulate the flow of ideas and information. However, we have witnessed the resurgence of national sovereignty in cyberspace, with many countries now resorting to a combination of technology, law and intimidation to reign in the spread of free speech via the Net. Often aided by the technological support of the private sector in the United States, for this class, we will debate the ethics, practicality and implications of Internet censorship.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2011/Evolving_Landscape_Internet_Control Roberts et al. Evolving Landscape of Internet Control]
* Read John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain: [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/Deibert_06_Ch05_103-122.pdf Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet]
* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf Jill York, Policing Content in the Quasi-public Sphere]
* Take a look at the [http://opennet.net/blog ONI blog]

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act DMCA 512 - the safe harbor provision]
* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns EFF's Hall of Shame]
* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/04/viacom-v-youtube-the-second-circuits-decision/ Copyhype on Viacom v. YouTube: The Second Circuit’s Decision]

== Additional Resources ==

</onlyinclude>
== Class Discussion ==
April 10: Internet and Democracy: The Sequel
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised by the numbers from the "Evolving Landscape..." reading as far as how normal people use the internet in restrictive countries. We tend to think of the internet as this powerful tool to access multicultural views and information, especially if you live in a censorious society. This neglects the fact that around 80% of the websites I use/read/visit commonly are based out of the U.S., and 99% are English-language, so why would that be substantially different for someone from China? Part of our assumption that this resource is so valuable is that people would want to read the same info we are, because it is presumably the best (and to be fair it at least quite often is, as far as the areas it actually covers). But that often is not the info most relevant to those readers.

The shockingly low % (1% at a guess by the reading) of people in China, for example, who are using circumvention tools makes a lot more sense when you realize that internal Chinese sites like youku fill the vast majority of their internet needs, and that specifically Chinese concepts and constructs like microblogging avoid censors through a much more realistic approach to political censorship for the average internet user there. This is troubling in light of the conclusion that censoring technologies may now be outstripping circumvention technologies/abilities of average internet users to avoid censorship/attack/tracking. The solution of aggressively empowering a small group of activists, who would then spread messages through the local networks, seems to me to be a good one. It does place those activists at even more risk by further singling them out though, and obviously detracts from the crowd-sourcing type benefits that are at the heart of the internet's value.

I'm looking forward to discussing in class the balance of an international company's responsibility to its shareholders to create profit and remain competitive v. its responsibility to its original nation's norms/laws/etc. v. its responsibility to to an international "human rights" type code for the internet, regardless of where it comes from or where it's serving.

There are always arguments to be made for profit above all else, and what if trying too hard to be moral lowers your profits to where an 100% immoral (in relation to these internet issues) company corners the market? Then your idealism ruined you AND actively hurt online rights, since you left the door open for someone far worse than yourself to control that chunk of the web. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In the reading The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control I agree with AlexLE that the numbers are astonishing. Besides the statistics that AlexLE already mentioned, I found it very interesting the case that China’s most effective form of Internet control has been not only shutting out foreign sites but mainly within China. The three reasons exposed there (aggressive blockage, high quality of Chinese websites and linguistic reasons, and pride and desire to use local products) make sense to me, and I really like the comparison between China and Russia about their ASNs and IP addresses, because it shows the level of control that each country has. Although compared to Russia it seems that China has a vast major control over the Internet, Russi has other types of exerting control, including the offline one, which is the particular Russia’s type of control.

I also felt dismayed with the more or less conclusion that the Governments are winning the battle in exerting control over the usage of the Internet. Nonetheless, I like the recommendations that the Berkman Center’s offers to promote open Internet and freedom of speech. I think one of these recommendations mirrors the success of the Kony2012 campaign, because when it says “focus on circumvention tools for activists” it means to me that if we want to win the battle we need to seek hubs, like in the Kony2012 campaign.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 20:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting this week to learn about the different technologies and measures the government takes to control the internet and the circumvention tools people take to by-pass filtering and blockage. Internet control is manageable in certain countries such as China and Russia due to the effectiveness of DDoS attacks and personal attacks that leave people fear retribution for speaking up against the government, and due to the challenges of circumvention tools, such as lack of access and language barrier.
I also find it interesting that Facebook’s approach to online policing is through user reporting of spam and blocking. I agree that it is difficult to bring Facebook’s content elsewhere since it is so comprehensive and generative, because its platform contains sharing images and videos, groups, and social-networking. In a way, it is a combination of Flikr, YouTube, and Twitter, which I personally so addictive.[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The first article for this week’s class was concise yet powerful and true. The internet has definitely become a very important battlefield and it can become a powerful weapon if used in certain ways. We can simply think of the number of people who read newspapers these days compared to blogs, forums and other online discussion boards where information can be, and it is very often, distorted. Other than this, the article was very useful for understanding political implications concerning the use of the internet, especially the ones that take place in Countries where freedom of speech is often denied by dictatorial governments. The Zittrain/Palfrey article was very interesting especially when depicting a hypothetical yet realistic situation at the beginning. For us westerners it is very hard to imagine what it would be like to be censored for futile reasons, or be controlled by governments and even be at risk of incarceration for writing something so harmless but fundamental like “democracy” in China. The third article was also very interesting and I personally could identify myself only with Facebook because I don’t use any other social network. What has been said is true but I believe that it can be very easy to avoid detection on Facebook if something against the rules were to take place. As the article has already said, anonymity is a very common practice on Facebook and I personally think that the Facebook staff doesn’t really spend that much time searching for irregularities, especially since they have created the “flag” option where users become a sort of citizen watch to report violations themselves. The ONI blog revealed some very attention-grabbing news about the internet but my attention was directed to the headline regarding CISPA and how people think it will become a new SOPA or PIPA. I have personally read the entire bill and I don’t think it can be considered similar at all. There have been a number of emails sent around the internet asking to sign a petition against CISPA for a series of reasons which turn out to be completely untrue, therefore one can really understand how emails, blogs and other internet tools can provide misinformation and make people believe something that isn’t true. I agree on the creation of the Safe Harbor Provision but I still think that ISPs or OSPs should also be vigilant 24/7 on what material is posted on their sites and take adequate countermeasures to stop illegal activity without waiting to actually be caught by the government or law enforcement agencies. The hall of shame was perhaps the most interesting website this week because it shows something which I am writing about in my research paper for this class and that is: Shaming ISPs in an attempt to stop illegal activities. The Viacom v. YouTube case was and still is very interesting. At first the court ruled in favor of YouTube but during the appeal it seems that both Viacom and YouTube can consider themselves victorious even though both losing something. It will be very interesting to see what happens next to this important case. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 10:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I found an interesting article on the ONI Blog titled "Iran Plans to Implement 'Clean Internet' by August 2012." That article summarizes, essentially, how the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology in Iran plans to soon "install an Intranet that will block Gmail, Facebook, and many other websites in attempts to create a 'clean Internet'." Some have named this an "electronic curtain." In lieu of the aforementioned popular western Internet tools, the government will instead replace them with Iran Mail and Iran Search Engine. I just found it fascinating that such a large scale crackdown on western internet tools would be carried out and implemented so quickly. It appears as if they are targeting a 5 month timeframe for completion. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 10:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The readings raise frightful questions about internet censorship that almost certainly will never be resolved if we expect corporations to “regulate” themselves and establish a code of ethics as Ziittrain and Palfrey explore. The whole core belief of the free market is that all corporations enjoy benefits and focus solely on profits, meaning that profits generated through ethical sacrifices will be a leading problem unless, as was suggested, the United Nations becomes involved or countries conform.

From the ONI website, the Iranian censorship campaign is quite disturbing. Yet many countries of the world have strong business ties with this regime and therefore outside pressures to encourage free speech are essentially a moot point.

The Arizona law mentioned on the ONI website is particularly troubling because of its ambiguous language. The controversial heart of the bill reads as follows (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-04/tech/tech_web_internet-trolls-arizona-law_1_bill-internet-trolls-hateful-comments?_s=PM:TECH):

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received."

While threats and intimidation may fall into the category of bullying, such broad language raises concerns on how law enforcement can, in fact, outwardly censor the internet at their own discretion. I don’t think you have to be a civil libertarian to find the ambiguity of this bill to be troubling.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff in all of the articles and blog site. Very interesting how China uses 4 chokepoints to filter 240m IP addresses versus Russia's use of 19 for 30 million. Makes sense to see the more authoritarian country the less that seems to be required. In Russia which is seen as democratic there appears to be more effort required to censor/filter the public (youth groups, hacking). Regarding workaround tools, I would simply be afraid to even USE one in a country like China out of fear of being detected and violating law. With Iran looking to completely cut itself from the world come August, will be interesting to see what the reaction is from the public.
Regarding companies doing international business, I see the other half of the coin (even though disturbing). I can understand how a company like Google censors information for the people of China because it's services are just an extension of offline information that was regulated in the same way. The troublesome part is handing over data which leads to arrests and other "human rights violations" as we Americans see it (per the article). I think there needs to be responsibility by the party using the service and knowing when trying to circumvent the service or use it for locally known laws that there can be some persecution. Ethics go both ways when following the law. I'd like to know how countries like Egypt/Syria/Iran compare to China in terms of authoritarianism/"human rights" violations against it's people. Looking forward to discussion and any input on this board. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 18:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Until this week's readings, I didn't realize how much the "playing field" had changed in the area of online censorship and circumvention. When I visited China for a month in late 2010, I primarily stayed in Yunnan province (generally in the NW). One of the hostels I stayed at was run by a westerner who "tunneled" in super fast internet from Hong Kong (that's what he told us, anyways). I could easily and quickly access various social media sites and the web content appeared unfiltered. Most other internet connections I used while in China were SO slow, I guess because of all the filtering/censoring. Typically, I couldn't access Facebook or Blogger unless I used one of these "tunneled" connections, although I could use the Facebook app on my iPhone! While in Cairo a couple weeks prior to the protests in Tahrir square, I had no trouble accessing Blogger or Facebook. This has probably changed in light of Arab Spring, though. I imagine that a comparison of authoritarian countries would produce varied differences in cyber control, presumably having to do with how some of these countries' cyber censorship fluctuates depending on events at home. I'm sure China will implement even more austere measures this fall in anticipation of protests during the CCP's once in a decade regime change.

I am also alarmed at how willingly (according to the OpenNet article) companies like Google and Skype give information to repressive authorities. I wonder what could be done about this. It's a very complicated situation and I don't know enough about it to make a legitimate judgment. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2012-04-03T20:05:48Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 3'''

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf John Palfrey and Hal Roberts, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]
* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy]

==Optional Readings==

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship (CATO)]
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0: Privacy]
* http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
* [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0610105 Narayanan and Shmatikov, How To Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset]
* [http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/1/1998-8.pdf Brin and Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know (NYTimes, March 26, 2011)]
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 3: Control and Code: Privacy Online
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This NYTimes article about surveillance over a variety of technological mediums in Great Britain could easily be another piece of HW for tomorrow's class if anyone is interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/europe/british-government-eavesdropping-plans-draw-protest.html?hp

Interesting about Hotspot Shield, I definitely was one of the people who used it and got the impression it was private without actually noticing what it allowed AnchorFree to track. On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised by the level of intentionally misleading speech Google employs to explain its (lack of) privacy protections by taking some extremely literal approaches to what they do or don't collect. If you have all of the components of a bomb and the ability to create it, it is a little misleading to say "I do not have a bomb in my possession in any way." I doubt the police would agree with this literally correct statement. That's what Google is doing when it says it doesn't collect personal info... it just collects all of the resources needed to immediately extrapolate that personal info, which it may or may not do any time it pleases.

There is still always the problem of information overload: it's no longer what info you can collect (since, as Google shows, you can get basically anything from the average user), but rather how good you are at searching and parsing it into something useful. There is also the issue that, like we discussed with the value of immediacy over accuracy in news reporting through Twitter, it is quite possible for people with good intentions to ruin someone's privacy and safety through a rush to judgement. Look at the Trayvon case, where someone (I think it was Spike Lee?) tweeted what he though was the home address of Trayvon's killer and it ended up being the residence of an older couple who had to leave in fear for their lives. When everything is accessible, massive mistakes can be made in the space of a keystroke, and cannot be undone so easily.

I worry about the word "consent" in terms of the information we share through our technology nowadays. We lose a right to privacy when we intentionally share information with the public; we consent to have that data known. But how many people understand what they are sharing by having a smartphone/GPS in their pocket 24/7? Is the fine print in the cell phone contract enough to count as consent? What about the location tags if I post to Facebook from my phone? How do we measure the level of understanding an individual has of what their technology is broadcasting about them and decide if it counted as "informed consent?"

This week’s articles were so far the most interesting and appealing to me. The first article about the European Union and their Telecom surveillance was very accurate. The big difference between Europe and the United States in this matter is that unlike the US Government, most European governments are “spying” on their citizens through phone taps and the internet even when national security isn’t at risk. The best example of this are the numerous phone and computer taps applied to VIPs and politicians in Italy especially. The second article was also very fascinating especially when it cited George Orwell’s 1984. I fully agree with what is written in the article and I believe that people nowadays might complain about Government intrusion and their violation of our privacy, but to a certain extent people who use Facebook or even worse, Twitter to always let people know where they are or what they are having for breakfast, are the people who really shouldn’t have anything to say against governmental surveillance. I live in Italy and history has taught us that the biggest Mafia bosses like Toto’ Riina and Bernardo Provenzano were able to hide for decades without being tracked because they didn’t use technological instruments for communicating, but the famous “pizzini” which were pieces of paper with written commands passed on from man to man without being intercepted or tracked by the police. The Privacy 2.0 article was also interesting and I particularly liked reading the 1973 blue-ribbon panel report regarding the relationship between people and organizations/institutions where a physical person is starting to become simply a name on a computer file. I have experienced this to some extent in terms of job searching. I would describe myself as being a very charismatic person with a decent resume for my age, but unfortunately most jobs I have applied to in the past use an online application system where you just send in your resume and then wait for an improbable interview. I always feel as if I could really advertise myself well if I was given a chance to meet personally with an employer but so far this has not been the case, and I personally blame technology. The article written by Supreme Court Justices Warren and Brandeis was very eloquent and truthful. When I used to take Constitutional Law in college, I was always reminded by my professor that in the US Constitution there is no such word as “privacy”, even though it is one of the biggest legal issues concerning everyday citizens. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Great articles. I thought the Brandeis paper was fascinating because you could have removed the publication date and I'd be convinced this was written in the past 10 years and the technologies being discussed were the tools of social media and new media (twitter, blogging).
@ Emmanuelle I thought you have some great insight into the EU article. Given the Murdoch UK Scandal I'd be interested in a study that measures the amount of cases "solved" with assistance of digital fingerprints or outright surveilance in contrast versus traditional policework. What is the trend? What is the trend in our quality of privacy given the Brandeis paper? His paper had me believe these problems make "1984" look like old news (or at least they foresaw a trend that would lead to further concern). Also concerned with the number of tools available for people today to snoop on others privacy such as the cellphone services. I'm interested to see what people think of the pro's v. cons of the evolution of our privacy slipping. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This week’s readings made me think of how exposed we are in a digital world, and how difficult it is to avoid being exposed, since our behaviors leave fingerprints and footprints that can be traced. The advent of new technologies also made it easy to find information quickly about individuals. For example, it is not unusual for companies to snoop on their employee’s activity on Facebook. I also agree, to some extent, that certain individuals like to be exposed, for instance, by posting pictures of themselves on Facebook and telling people what they are doing or where they are by posting on their statuses or checking into places using applications on their phone. Due to the findability and availability of personal data, users must be cautious of their online use. For instance, Facebook’s default privacy setting is that “everyone” can publicly view your profile and activities. Most of the time I do not think about privacy invasions, because I do feel some sense of control in allowing who can access my personal information, such as blocking certain people on Facebook. I also do not mind that certain data are made public, if I do not have anything to hide. For instance, I like the fact that hiring managers can “google” my name to find out whether or not I had lied on my resume regarding my employment history. In other cases, I do occasionally worry about identity theft, but new technologies also made it easy track down the offender. Regarding my debit card, I check my bank statements regularly. So, I really think that there are some measures that people can take to protect themselves, since it is difficult to avoid being exposed or leaving a trace. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point Brendan on the UK Murdoch scandal... There are certainly age-old constitutional questions regarding this week's readings The notion of privacy is at the heart of this age-old question of legal overreach concerning our "natural" rights to exchange information privately. In particular, the EU Data Retention article is an eyeopening reminder that the internet is full of holes in which security agencies can extract data in non-transparent or covert ways, particularly data that does not necessarily require the legal modalities to extract. Furthermore the centralized nature of the ISP's seems to establish the infrastructure for the practical monitoring of data. The fact that such large quantities of information can be centralized in a few major portals such as Google and Facebook must be a concern if laws are structured in such a way that these internet agencies must comply with private information requests from the government.

One section of the EU retention article is particularly telling:

"We know that the NSA is engaged in some level of warrantless surveillance of the international communications of U.S. citizens, but we do not know precisely what is being done with the data."

George W. Bush's administration was the first time in my generation that I had to be concerned about my privacy, and how the government could seemingly circumvent what we assumed to be legal protections from the Constitution. With the fluidity of the infrastructure, laws that may compel telecommunications companies to provide information, and furthermore a lack of transparency by government security apparatus's, privacy and the internet will be a continued subject for discourse, particularly as circumvention measures increase power of programmers over the security of the users as stated in the story. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty neat how Brandeis and Warren were effectively peering into the future and accurately writing about our society's current issues. I agree with Brendan on that one.
I think that it can be easy to forget how little privacy we actually have, or maybe it's just that people define privacy in different ways. By now, most everyone knows that what you post on Facebook is basically public (even if your profile is private!), but people don't generally close their accounts over that. Instead, those who are concerned with privacy but still want to use the social media site try to limit what they post, or tend to be a bit more careful (one would like to think, anyway). I think our actions show that we're more accepting of less privacy, even if someone were to ask us about this, we'd say we were in favor of more privacy. Part of this has to do with convenience. But it's also important to consider the environment we live/grew up in. To many of us, certain "privacy losses" are the norm (having our photos online, etc). In "Blown to Bits," they write, "The social evolution that was supported
by consumer technologies in turn made us more accepting of new enabling
technologies; the social and technological evolutions have proceeded hand in
hand."
On the flip side of that, I think most of us would be reluctant to endorse RFID scanning of humans (although my dogs are "micro-chipped"!), RFIDs tracking our shoes/steps, or the grocery checkout scenario (in chapter 2 of "Blown to Bits") in favor of a little more convenience.
One thing that really stuck out to me was how the concept of "public" has dramatically changed. Sure, campaign contributions or voter records have been available to the public for some time now, but not to the global public. In general, we all know this is as a fact (that the general public is now the "global public"), but if you take a second to think on it, it blows your mind.
Companies "accidentally" take personal information they aren't entitled to fairly regularly. What the heck is Google up to these days, anyways? Thanks to their street view cars, they must have a nice collection of personal WiFi network information by now. But how much do we really care? What is being done about this/who is really and actively speaking out? How much does it bother you/what do you do about it? [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The readings for this week about privacy and surveillance on the Internet were very interesting. They made me recall a Colombian case very close to my life. In 2009 I was studying a Summer School at Los Andes University in Colombia. Coincidentally one of the Colombian President Uribe’s sons was doing the same course, and we were in the same working group. We had to do the final presentation, and met for a couple of times, but suddenly he disappeared, didn’t answer the phone or e-mail anymore. Later we knew that somebody created a group in Facebook called “My compromise is to kill Geronimo Uribe (President’s son)” and his security guards had to hide him and take the most vigilant measures, especially because the present of the FARC in Colombia, an insurgent guerrilla commonly associated with terrorism acts, makes every situation to be taken seriously.

Thus, initially this group was attributed to the FARC by the Colombian government. Nevertheless, three months later the police managed to capture the creator of this group. He was a university student around his third year making a joke, but he didn’t know what Internet surveillance was capable of, and had to pay the consequences. He used an old laptop to enter Facebook from his house, located in the countryside of Bogota, Colombia’s capital. Although it was a relief to know that the real source of this threat to the President’s son was a teenager making a joke, first of all he had to apologize for his actions, and second he went to trial to pass sometime in jail.

At that time I was wondering how was possible to achieve this capture. I was surprised by the ability of the tech people from the police to track this person’s movements, but this week, after reading the Jhon Palfrey and Hal Roberts’ article I realized how easy it is to track information through the Internet. Moreover, I felt more astonished knowing that surveillance and violation of privacy is possible even when the information is encrypted.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2012-04-03T20:01:17Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 3'''

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf John Palfrey and Hal Roberts, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]
* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy]

==Optional Readings==

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship (CATO)]
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0: Privacy]
* http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
* [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0610105 Narayanan and Shmatikov, How To Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset]
* [http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/1/1998-8.pdf Brin and Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know (NYTimes, March 26, 2011)]
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 3: Control and Code: Privacy Online
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This NYTimes article about surveillance over a variety of technological mediums in Great Britain could easily be another piece of HW for tomorrow's class if anyone is interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/europe/british-government-eavesdropping-plans-draw-protest.html?hp

Interesting about Hotspot Shield, I definitely was one of the people who used it and got the impression it was private without actually noticing what it allowed AnchorFree to track. On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised by the level of intentionally misleading speech Google employs to explain its (lack of) privacy protections by taking some extremely literal approaches to what they do or don't collect. If you have all of the components of a bomb and the ability to create it, it is a little misleading to say "I do not have a bomb in my possession in any way." I doubt the police would agree with this literally correct statement. That's what Google is doing when it says it doesn't collect personal info... it just collects all of the resources needed to immediately extrapolate that personal info, which it may or may not do any time it pleases.

There is still always the problem of information overload: it's no longer what info you can collect (since, as Google shows, you can get basically anything from the average user), but rather how good you are at searching and parsing it into something useful. There is also the issue that, like we discussed with the value of immediacy over accuracy in news reporting through Twitter, it is quite possible for people with good intentions to ruin someone's privacy and safety through a rush to judgement. Look at the Trayvon case, where someone (I think it was Spike Lee?) tweeted what he though was the home address of Trayvon's killer and it ended up being the residence of an older couple who had to leave in fear for their lives. When everything is accessible, massive mistakes can be made in the space of a keystroke, and cannot be undone so easily.

I worry about the word "consent" in terms of the information we share through our technology nowadays. We lose a right to privacy when we intentionally share information with the public; we consent to have that data known. But how many people understand what they are sharing by having a smartphone/GPS in their pocket 24/7? Is the fine print in the cell phone contract enough to count as consent? What about the location tags if I post to Facebook from my phone? How do we measure the level of understanding an individual has of what their technology is broadcasting about them and decide if it counted as "informed consent?"

This week’s articles were so far the most interesting and appealing to me. The first article about the European Union and their Telecom surveillance was very accurate. The big difference between Europe and the United States in this matter is that unlike the US Government, most European governments are “spying” on their citizens through phone taps and the internet even when national security isn’t at risk. The best example of this are the numerous phone and computer taps applied to VIPs and politicians in Italy especially. The second article was also very fascinating especially when it cited George Orwell’s 1984. I fully agree with what is written in the article and I believe that people nowadays might complain about Government intrusion and their violation of our privacy, but to a certain extent people who use Facebook or even worse, Twitter to always let people know where they are or what they are having for breakfast, are the people who really shouldn’t have anything to say against governmental surveillance. I live in Italy and history has taught us that the biggest Mafia bosses like Toto’ Riina and Bernardo Provenzano were able to hide for decades without being tracked because they didn’t use technological instruments for communicating, but the famous “pizzini” which were pieces of paper with written commands passed on from man to man without being intercepted or tracked by the police. The Privacy 2.0 article was also interesting and I particularly liked reading the 1973 blue-ribbon panel report regarding the relationship between people and organizations/institutions where a physical person is starting to become simply a name on a computer file. I have experienced this to some extent in terms of job searching. I would describe myself as being a very charismatic person with a decent resume for my age, but unfortunately most jobs I have applied to in the past use an online application system where you just send in your resume and then wait for an improbable interview. I always feel as if I could really advertise myself well if I was given a chance to meet personally with an employer but so far this has not been the case, and I personally blame technology. The article written by Supreme Court Justices Warren and Brandeis was very eloquent and truthful. When I used to take Constitutional Law in college, I was always reminded by my professor that in the US Constitution there is no such word as “privacy”, even though it is one of the biggest legal issues concerning everyday citizens. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Great articles. I thought the Brandeis paper was fascinating because you could have removed the publication date and I'd be convinced this was written in the past 10 years and the technologies being discussed were the tools of social media and new media (twitter, blogging).
@ Emmanuelle I thought you have some great insight into the EU article. Given the Murdoch UK Scandal I'd be interested in a study that measures the amount of cases "solved" with assistance of digital fingerprints or outright surveilance in contrast versus traditional policework. What is the trend? What is the trend in our quality of privacy given the Brandeis paper? His paper had me believe these problems make "1984" look like old news (or at least they foresaw a trend that would lead to further concern). Also concerned with the number of tools available for people today to snoop on others privacy such as the cellphone services. I'm interested to see what people think of the pro's v. cons of the evolution of our privacy slipping. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This week’s readings made me think of how exposed we are in a digital world, and how difficult it is to avoid being exposed, since our behaviors leave fingerprints and footprints that can be traced. The advent of new technologies also made it easy to find information quickly about individuals. For example, it is not unusual for companies to snoop on their employee’s activity on Facebook. I also agree, to some extent, that certain individuals like to be exposed, for instance, by posting pictures of themselves on Facebook and telling people what they are doing or where they are by posting on their statuses or checking into places using applications on their phone. Due to the findability and availability of personal data, users must be cautious of their online use. For instance, Facebook’s default privacy setting is that “everyone” can publicly view your profile and activities. Most of the time I do not think about privacy invasions, because I do feel some sense of control in allowing who can access my personal information, such as blocking certain people on Facebook. I also do not mind that certain data are made public, if I do not have anything to hide. For instance, I like the fact that hiring managers can “google” my name to find out whether or not I had lied on my resume regarding my employment history. In other cases, I do occasionally worry about identity theft, but new technologies also made it easy track down the offender. Regarding my debit card, I check my bank statements regularly. So, I really think that there are some measures that people can take to protect themselves, since it is difficult to avoid being exposed or leaving a trace. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point Brendan on the UK Murdoch scandal... There are certainly age-old constitutional questions regarding this week's readings The notion of privacy is at the heart of this age-old question of legal overreach concerning our "natural" rights to exchange information privately. In particular, the EU Data Retention article is an eyeopening reminder that the internet is full of holes in which security agencies can extract data in non-transparent or covert ways, particularly data that does not necessarily require the legal modalities to extract. Furthermore the centralized nature of the ISP's seems to establish the infrastructure for the practical monitoring of data. The fact that such large quantities of information can be centralized in a few major portals such as Google and Facebook must be a concern if laws are structured in such a way that these internet agencies must comply with private information requests from the government.

One section of the EU retention article is particularly telling:

"We know that the NSA is engaged in some level of warrantless surveillance of the international communications of U.S. citizens, but we do not know precisely what is being done with the data."

George W. Bush's administration was the first time in my generation that I had to be concerned about my privacy, and how the government could seemingly circumvent what we assumed to be legal protections from the Constitution. With the fluidity of the infrastructure, laws that may compel telecommunications companies to provide information, and furthermore a lack of transparency by government security apparatus's, privacy and the internet will be a continued subject for discourse, particularly as circumvention measures increase power of programmers over the security of the users as stated in the story. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty neat how Brandeis and Warren were effectively peering into the future and accurately writing about our society's current issues. I agree with Brendan on that one.
I think that it can be easy to forget how little privacy we actually have, or maybe it's just that people define privacy in different ways. By now, most everyone knows that what you post on Facebook is basically public (even if your profile is private!), but people don't generally close their accounts over that. Instead, those who are concerned with privacy but still want to use the social media site try to limit what they post, or tend to be a bit more careful (one would like to think, anyway). I think our actions show that we're more accepting of less privacy, even if someone were to ask us about this, we'd say we were in favor of more privacy. Part of this has to do with convenience. But it's also important to consider the environment we live/grew up in. To many of us, certain "privacy losses" are the norm (having our photos online, etc). In "Blown to Bits," they write, "The social evolution that was supported
by consumer technologies in turn made us more accepting of new enabling
technologies; the social and technological evolutions have proceeded hand in
hand."
On the flip side of that, I think most of us would be reluctant to endorse RFID scanning of humans (although my dogs are "micro-chipped"!), RFIDs tracking our shoes/steps, or the grocery checkout scenario (in chapter 2 of "Blown to Bits") in favor of a little more convenience.
One thing that really stuck out to me was how the concept of "public" has dramatically changed. Sure, campaign contributions or voter records have been available to the public for some time now, but not to the global public. In general, we all know this is as a fact (that the general public is now the "global public"), but if you take a second to think on it, it blows your mind.
Companies "accidentally" take personal information they aren't entitled to fairly regularly. What the heck is Google up to these days, anyways? Thanks to their street view cars, they must have a nice collection of personal WiFi network information by now. But how much do we really care? What is being done about this/who is really and actively speaking out? How much does it bother you/what do you do about it? [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The readings for this week about privacy and surveillance on the Internet were very interesting. They made me recall a Colombian case very close to my life. In 2009 I was studying a Summer School at Los Andes University in Colombia. Coincidentally one of the Colombian President Uribe’s sons was doing the same course, and we were in the same working group. We had to do the final presentation, and met for a couple of times, but suddenly he disappeared, didn’t answer the phone or e-mail anymore. Later we knew that somebody created a group in Facebook called “My compromise is to kill Geronimo Uribe (President’s son)” and his security guards had to hide him and take the most vigilant measures, especially because the present of the FARC in Colombia, an insurgent guerrilla commonly associated with terrorism acts, makes every situation to be taken seriously.

Thus, initially this group was attributed to the FARC by the Colombian government. Nevertheless, three months later the police managed to capture the creator of this group. He was a university student around his third year making a joke, but he didn’t know what Internet surveillance was capable of, and had to pay the consequences. He used an old laptop to enter Facebook from his house, located in the countryside of Bogota, Colombia’s capital. Although it was a relief to know that the real source of this threat to the President’s son was a teenager making a joke, first of all he had to apologize for his actions, and second he went to trial to pass sometime in jail.

At that time I was wondering how was possible to achieve this capture. I was surprised by the ability of the tech people from the police to track this person’s movements, but this week, after reading the Jhon Palfrey and Hal Roberts’ article I realized how easy is track information through the Internet. Moreover, I felt more astonished knowing that surveillance and violation of privacy is possible even when the information is encrypted.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2012-04-03T19:59:31Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''April 3'''

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf John Palfrey and Hal Roberts, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]
* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy]

==Optional Readings==

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship (CATO)]
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0: Privacy]
* http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
* [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0610105 Narayanan and Shmatikov, How To Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset]
* [http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/1/1998-8.pdf Brin and Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know (NYTimes, March 26, 2011)]
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
April 3: Control and Code: Privacy Online
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This NYTimes article about surveillance over a variety of technological mediums in Great Britain could easily be another piece of HW for tomorrow's class if anyone is interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/europe/british-government-eavesdropping-plans-draw-protest.html?hp

Interesting about Hotspot Shield, I definitely was one of the people who used it and got the impression it was private without actually noticing what it allowed AnchorFree to track. On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised by the level of intentionally misleading speech Google employs to explain its (lack of) privacy protections by taking some extremely literal approaches to what they do or don't collect. If you have all of the components of a bomb and the ability to create it, it is a little misleading to say "I do not have a bomb in my possession in any way." I doubt the police would agree with this literally correct statement. That's what Google is doing when it says it doesn't collect personal info... it just collects all of the resources needed to immediately extrapolate that personal info, which it may or may not do any time it pleases.

There is still always the problem of information overload: it's no longer what info you can collect (since, as Google shows, you can get basically anything from the average user), but rather how good you are at searching and parsing it into something useful. There is also the issue that, like we discussed with the value of immediacy over accuracy in news reporting through Twitter, it is quite possible for people with good intentions to ruin someone's privacy and safety through a rush to judgement. Look at the Trayvon case, where someone (I think it was Spike Lee?) tweeted what he though was the home address of Trayvon's killer and it ended up being the residence of an older couple who had to leave in fear for their lives. When everything is accessible, massive mistakes can be made in the space of a keystroke, and cannot be undone so easily.

I worry about the word "consent" in terms of the information we share through our technology nowadays. We lose a right to privacy when we intentionally share information with the public; we consent to have that data known. But how many people understand what they are sharing by having a smartphone/GPS in their pocket 24/7? Is the fine print in the cell phone contract enough to count as consent? What about the location tags if I post to Facebook from my phone? How do we measure the level of understanding an individual has of what their technology is broadcasting about them and decide if it counted as "informed consent?"

This week’s articles were so far the most interesting and appealing to me. The first article about the European Union and their Telecom surveillance was very accurate. The big difference between Europe and the United States in this matter is that unlike the US Government, most European governments are “spying” on their citizens through phone taps and the internet even when national security isn’t at risk. The best example of this are the numerous phone and computer taps applied to VIPs and politicians in Italy especially. The second article was also very fascinating especially when it cited George Orwell’s 1984. I fully agree with what is written in the article and I believe that people nowadays might complain about Government intrusion and their violation of our privacy, but to a certain extent people who use Facebook or even worse, Twitter to always let people know where they are or what they are having for breakfast, are the people who really shouldn’t have anything to say against governmental surveillance. I live in Italy and history has taught us that the biggest Mafia bosses like Toto’ Riina and Bernardo Provenzano were able to hide for decades without being tracked because they didn’t use technological instruments for communicating, but the famous “pizzini” which were pieces of paper with written commands passed on from man to man without being intercepted or tracked by the police. The Privacy 2.0 article was also interesting and I particularly liked reading the 1973 blue-ribbon panel report regarding the relationship between people and organizations/institutions where a physical person is starting to become simply a name on a computer file. I have experienced this to some extent in terms of job searching. I would describe myself as being a very charismatic person with a decent resume for my age, but unfortunately most jobs I have applied to in the past use an online application system where you just send in your resume and then wait for an improbable interview. I always feel as if I could really advertise myself well if I was given a chance to meet personally with an employer but so far this has not been the case, and I personally blame technology. The article written by Supreme Court Justices Warren and Brandeis was very eloquent and truthful. When I used to take Constitutional Law in college, I was always reminded by my professor that in the US Constitution there is no such word as “privacy”, even though it is one of the biggest legal issues concerning everyday citizens. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Great articles. I thought the Brandeis paper was fascinating because you could have removed the publication date and I'd be convinced this was written in the past 10 years and the technologies being discussed were the tools of social media and new media (twitter, blogging).
@ Emmanuelle I thought you have some great insight into the EU article. Given the Murdoch UK Scandal I'd be interested in a study that measures the amount of cases "solved" with assistance of digital fingerprints or outright surveilance in contrast versus traditional policework. What is the trend? What is the trend in our quality of privacy given the Brandeis paper? His paper had me believe these problems make "1984" look like old news (or at least they foresaw a trend that would lead to further concern). Also concerned with the number of tools available for people today to snoop on others privacy such as the cellphone services. I'm interested to see what people think of the pro's v. cons of the evolution of our privacy slipping. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This week’s readings made me think of how exposed we are in a digital world, and how difficult it is to avoid being exposed, since our behaviors leave fingerprints and footprints that can be traced. The advent of new technologies also made it easy to find information quickly about individuals. For example, it is not unusual for companies to snoop on their employee’s activity on Facebook. I also agree, to some extent, that certain individuals like to be exposed, for instance, by posting pictures of themselves on Facebook and telling people what they are doing or where they are by posting on their statuses or checking into places using applications on their phone. Due to the findability and availability of personal data, users must be cautious of their online use. For instance, Facebook’s default privacy setting is that “everyone” can publicly view your profile and activities. Most of the time I do not think about privacy invasions, because I do feel some sense of control in allowing who can access my personal information, such as blocking certain people on Facebook. I also do not mind that certain data are made public, if I do not have anything to hide. For instance, I like the fact that hiring managers can “google” my name to find out whether or not I had lied on my resume regarding my employment history. In other cases, I do occasionally worry about identity theft, but new technologies also made it easy track down the offender. Regarding my debit card, I check my bank statements regularly. So, I really think that there are some measures that people can take to protect themselves, since it is difficult to avoid being exposed or leaving a trace. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point Brendan on the UK Murdoch scandal... There are certainly age-old constitutional questions regarding this week's readings The notion of privacy is at the heart of this age-old question of legal overreach concerning our "natural" rights to exchange information privately. In particular, the EU Data Retention article is an eyeopening reminder that the internet is full of holes in which security agencies can extract data in non-transparent or covert ways, particularly data that does not necessarily require the legal modalities to extract. Furthermore the centralized nature of the ISP's seems to establish the infrastructure for the practical monitoring of data. The fact that such large quantities of information can be centralized in a few major portals such as Google and Facebook must be a concern if laws are structured in such a way that these internet agencies must comply with private information requests from the government.

One section of the EU retention article is particularly telling:

"We know that the NSA is engaged in some level of warrantless surveillance of the international communications of U.S. citizens, but we do not know precisely what is being done with the data."

George W. Bush's administration was the first time in my generation that I had to be concerned about my privacy, and how the government could seemingly circumvent what we assumed to be legal protections from the Constitution. With the fluidity of the infrastructure, laws that may compel telecommunications companies to provide information, and furthermore a lack of transparency by government security apparatus's, privacy and the internet will be a continued subject for discourse, particularly as circumvention measures increase power of programmers over the security of the users as stated in the story. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty neat how Brandeis and Warren were effectively peering into the future and accurately writing about our society's current issues. I agree with Brendan on that one.
I think that it can be easy to forget how little privacy we actually have, or maybe it's just that people define privacy in different ways. By now, most everyone knows that what you post on Facebook is basically public (even if your profile is private!), but people don't generally close their accounts over that. Instead, those who are concerned with privacy but still want to use the social media site try to limit what they post, or tend to be a bit more careful (one would like to think, anyway). I think our actions show that we're more accepting of less privacy, even if someone were to ask us about this, we'd say we were in favor of more privacy. Part of this has to do with convenience. But it's also important to consider the environment we live/grew up in. To many of us, certain "privacy losses" are the norm (having our photos online, etc). In "Blown to Bits," they write, "The social evolution that was supported
by consumer technologies in turn made us more accepting of new enabling
technologies; the social and technological evolutions have proceeded hand in
hand."
On the flip side of that, I think most of us would be reluctant to endorse RFID scanning of humans (although my dogs are "micro-chipped"!), RFIDs tracking our shoes/steps, or the grocery checkout scenario (in chapter 2 of "Blown to Bits") in favor of a little more convenience.
One thing that really stuck out to me was how the concept of "public" has dramatically changed. Sure, campaign contributions or voter records have been available to the public for some time now, but not to the global public. In general, we all know this is as a fact (that the general public is now the "global public"), but if you take a second to think on it, it blows your mind.
Companies "accidentally" take personal information they aren't entitled to fairly regularly. What the heck is Google up to these days, anyways? Thanks to their street view cars, they must have a nice collection of personal WiFi network information by now. But how much do we really care? What is being done about this/who is really and actively speaking out? How much does it bother you/what do you do about it? [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The readings for this week about privacy and surveillance on the Internet were very interesting. They made me recall a Colombian case very close to my life. In 2009 I was studying a Summer School at Los Andes University in Colombia. Coincidentally one of the Colombian President Uribe’s sons was doing the same course, and we were in the same working group. We had to do the final presentation, and met for a couple of times, but suddenly he disappeared, didn’t answer the phone or e-mail anymore. Later we knew that somebody created a group in Facebook called “My compromise is to kill Geronimo Uribe (President’s son)” and his security guards had to hide him and take the most vigilant measures, especially because the present of the FARC in Colombia, an insurgent guerrilla commonly associated with terrorism acts, makes every situation like to be taken seriously.

Thus, initially this group was attributed to the FARC by the Colombian government. Nevertheless, three months later the police managed to capture the creator of this group. He was a university student around his third year making a joke, but he didn’t know what Internet surveillance was capable of, and had to pay the consequences. He used an old laptop to enter Facebook from his house, located in the countryside of Bogota, Colombia’s capital. Although it was a relief to know that the real source of this threat to the President’s son was a teenager making a joke, first of all he had to apologize for his actions, and second he went to trial to pass sometime in jail.

At that time I was wondering how was possible to achieve this capture. I was surprised by the ability of the tech people from the police to track this person’s movements, but this week, after reading the Jhon Palfrey and Hal Roberts’ article I realized how easy is track information through the Internet. Moreover, I felt more astonished knowing that surveillance and violation of privacy is possible even when the information is encrypted.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Internet and Democracy

2012-03-26T22:09:45Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''March 27'''

Digital tools are seen as playing a major part in political activities and revolutions around the world from the Green Revolution in Iran to the recent events in the Middle East and North Africa. In this class, we'll explore the role of the Internet in political organizing, social movements and popular protests, and the potential impact of digital tools on governance.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/a-new-theory-for-the-foreign-policy-frontier-collaborative-power/249260/ Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New Theory for the Foreign Policy Frontier: Collaborative Power]

* [http://technosociology.org/?p=566INSERT Zeynep Tufekci, The #freemona Perfect Storm: Dissent and the Networked Public Sphere]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2012/exploring_russian_cyberspace Alexanyan et al, Exploring Russian Cyberspace: Digitally-Mediated Collective Action and the Networked Public Sphere]

* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]

* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell Malcolm Gladwell, Why the revolution will not be tweeted.]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Etling, Kelly, Faris and Palfrey, Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture and Dissent]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public Etling and Kelly, Mapping Iran's Online Public]

* [http://ui04e.moit.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/32-2pdfs/Faris-Etling_32-2.pdf Faris, Etling, Madison and the Smart Mob: The Promise and Limitations of the Internet for Democracy]

* [http://rosebellkagumire.com/2012/03/08/kony2012-my-response-to-invisible-childrens-campaign/ Rosebell Kagumire, Kony2012; My response to Invisible Children’s campaign]

* [http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_letter_from_uganda_on_kony2012_20120315/ Sara Weschler, A Letter From Uganda on #Kony2012]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

March 27: Internet and Democracy
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great analysis in the Social Flow Blog about the Kony2012 campaign. This reading made me realize the two powerful ingredients for the skyrocketing spread of an online message: pre-existing networks and philanthropy tactics. I had seen the video a few weeks ago and felt inclined to participate. I think anything that has to do with children is touching for the people, also for me; but at the same time I was wondering how this campaign, and no others--because injustice is present in a number of cases around the world--succeeded in the gathering of all that people, and these two ingredients led me to the Eureka solution. I think it's very interesting from the marketing point of view, and for sure marketers have analyzed the Kony2012 campaign, as they have done in the social networks.

As for the Russian reading, What most interested me about it was the networked public sphere phenomenon in practice, in which when an issue is considered to be from public importance online activists take action—like the Khimki forest campaign, the drivers’ movement and the Anti-Seliger protests. From my point of view this will continually help in the building of real democracies in which people can participate and their voices are heard. In the Russian case, this shift is happening and having success due to the low level of support that the people have for institutions, and it is something to be expected not only in Russia but also around the world. Not far away, this situation led the Middle East towards the Arab Spring, in which social networks participation was crucial to detonate the revolutions.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I had read the Gladwell article before and just seeing his name in the list of readings lead me back to it first (who doesn't always want to read a Gladwell piece?). I also generally agree with his conclusions about the limitations of social media and had arrived at roughly the same place in some of our earlier class discussions. As a result, I feel like my reading of the other materials was mostly through that skeptical lens. I very much agree that the degree of effort, true commitment, and genuine impact is extremely different on Twitter vs. in real life, and while that should be quite obvious it sometimes seems like it gets disregarded during our current age of adoration of social media and Twitter in particular. His explanation of how strong vs weak social connections play into that difference in true commitment was an interesting next step in understanding protest and activism both through social media and in our physical daily lives.

That all being said, I still was very impressed by the #freeMona campaign and its results. I like that the various pieces we read on it acknowledged that it was more or less a perfect storm of connected individuals and important relationships along with Twitter and that Twitter was not the be-all end-all savior in a vacuum, but it still seemed undeniable that this was the power of Twitter in action. The main point to me is that Twitter was used as the connective piece; a hashtag alone did not free her. What it did was inform and motivate a large group of people, and included in that group were a few with the existing power and connections to allow them to call the state department, arrange to send help, etc., and in the end that freed her. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 13:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Collective Action and Decision-making

2012-03-20T20:28:35Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''March 20'''

Mass collaboration and the aggregation of information enable potentially profound changes in business and politics. In this class, we will compare and contrast the transformations in economic life and collective decision-making processes brought on the information revolution. The discussions will also explore the role of open information systems on business and the scope for greater transparency and participation in government, politics and public life.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3 due]]

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* James Surowiecki, [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html Wisdom of Crowds (excerpt)]
**[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/books/review/0523books-mclemee.html?ex=1400644800&en=43bc95eb638bfed2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND NYT Review]
* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=1125 Ethan Zuckerman's blog review of Infotopia] Great summary of the issues in the book.

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseer.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.59.9009%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=IHRnT8TLOe-00QHH5YSHCA&usg=AFQjCNERO0GwXWc7DLWZwSaqnjjjMTWMYg Divided They Blog] - a paper showing trackbacks between political blogs, mentioned by Ethan Zuckerman in his review of Cass Sunstein's Infotopia
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

March 20: Collective Action and Decision-making
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Johnson’s experiment of the maze, I like the idea that the group had discovered the optimal solution, and it would be interesting to demonstrate that it applies to the real world and not only in laboratory settings and classrooms. I think it would be even more interesting to analyze the relation with the phenomenon of the social networks, in which the mass decision and participation primes over a handful of people making what they think is better for the society. I think this experiment has more sense than the Victorian notions that humanity, as a group, is just a dumb herd. I don’t think this is a correct statement, nevertheless experiments like Sustein’s in which was demonstrated that people find it difficult to defy the will of a group, and may polarize to avoid interpersonal conflict are facts that should be carefully thought. The question is if in fact this applies also for Internet communities, in which there’s no personal contact and people feel freer to express whatever they want without fearing opposition and being different. In any case, what I like more in the Ethan Zuckerman Blog review of Infotopia is that in some cases the predictions are proven wrong, like the Sunstein’s predictions that if we can choose our own media we will isolate ourselves in an information cocoon. Therefore, deliberation could be proven to be an effective way to accumulate information.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 20:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Even though group intelligence is more difficult to measure than individual intelligence, I do believe that a crowd can outsmart a genius. Imagine for example, if a very intelligent physicist is isolated and only surrounded by other physicists, he/she maybe outstanding in this field, but is limited to what he/she can do. However, when allowed to collaborate with cell and molecular biologists, chemists, mechanical and electrical engineers, medical doctors, veterinarians, etc… a physicist learns to conduct cell mechanics, biophysics, molecular and biochemical experiments, and has the potential to solve health problems, such as coming up with a drug to relax airway smooth muscle cells during an asthma attack. When a group of diverse individuals collaborate, they can solve problems that they otherwise cannot solve individually. The internet has allowed this collaboration to increase globally through technologies such as Skype and E-mail. In some instances, group intelligence depends on its structure and dynamics. For example, Megan Garber, from Nieman Lab, reported that MIT researchers found that “[g]roup intelligence is correlated…with emotional intelligence, http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/05/mit-management-professor-tom-malone-on-collective-intelligence-and-the-genetic-structure-of-groups/. The researchers concluded that a group is more intelligent and is more likely to solve difficult problems when there are more women in it. Simply placing very smart individuals together in a group does not make a group smarter.
When I think of a very intelligent individual or genius, I think of my lab principal investigator, who has the ability to lead his lab members and make important decisions. However, he would have not made an informed decision without hearing the lab members deliberate. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 15:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the connection between the reality of crowd intelligence in "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" or marble-jar guessing and the concept of blog aggregates and online communities. It seems like this is a good argument against the dangers of cocooning at some levels. While a given blog/website community is likely there because they all subscribe to a certain set of interests or views, at least you know that if you're going to a big one you're probably getting the very best and most cohesive expression of those concepts. It may not make them right, but it adds value to them as a tool for educating yourself. Aggregates also will provide a balance to the problem that 1 or 2 of every group of 50 people will actually be more accurate than the group at guessing the number of marbles... but only in that one specific trial. If you follow one blogger religiously you are susceptible to their blind spots and moments where they were simply wrong. If you follow a collection of sites and blogs you will be exposed to the correct answers to most questions; whether you realize which is the correct answer is up to you haha. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 14:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles that we had to read for this week were very interesting to me. I really enjoyed how the first article focused on statistics regarding various experiments and “Who wants to be a millionaire”, a program which I personally loved watching. Even though I respect and find very interesting the point made regarding the percentages being higher and closer to the correct answer for groups and less accurate for individuals, I don’t agree. Math and Statistics aren’t my field and I must admit that I’m not very good at any of them but I feel off the top of my head that it is quite obvious that a group would obtain a higher and more accurate score than an individual because the general population or “average Joe” is likely to get fairly close to the right answer which can be higher or lower but of course adding all the higher scores to the lower ones, I find it to be mathematically obvious that we shall obtain an approximately correct average score. Therefore this being said I find the “Condorcet Jury Theorem”, mentioned in the third article to pretty much respect my personal opinion on the subject. In conclusion I very much enjoyed these articles and I find that in some way these theories emphasizing on group work and force are exactly what Democracy is about. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Collective action affects us everyday (or at least those of us that read news, shop, or blog online). For instance, if you use Reddit, most likely you're reading posts on the front page that were up-voted--a form of collective action. Zuckerman's article also points out "Amazon's collaborative filtering recs and Google's page rank algorithm." This had a huge effect on business (as we read in the long tail article, for example).

Sunstein has a valid point with ideological cocoons, but does seem flawed. I agree with Zuckerman and the others who labeled his idea as "alarmist." While it's entirely possible (as "Divided they Blog" suggests) for people to seek out news and sites with similar ideologies and have their beliefs continually reinforced, that is not necessarily the way most people 'read the news.' Greater exposure to new ideas or newspapers/news from far away, like the readings said, is a benefit that far outweighs the risk of people forming an ideological cocoon. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 18:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I realize we'll probably dig deeper into the topics of collective action and decision-making in the "Internet and Democracy" classes but I'd love to have a longer reading list on this topic. If anyone has any additional recommendations, please share. Thanks! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Collective Action and Decision-making

2012-03-20T20:25:45Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''March 20'''

Mass collaboration and the aggregation of information enable potentially profound changes in business and politics. In this class, we will compare and contrast the transformations in economic life and collective decision-making processes brought on the information revolution. The discussions will also explore the role of open information systems on business and the scope for greater transparency and participation in government, politics and public life.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3 due]]

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* James Surowiecki, [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html Wisdom of Crowds (excerpt)]
**[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/books/review/0523books-mclemee.html?ex=1400644800&en=43bc95eb638bfed2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND NYT Review]
* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=1125 Ethan Zuckerman's blog review of Infotopia] Great summary of the issues in the book.

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseer.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.59.9009%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=IHRnT8TLOe-00QHH5YSHCA&usg=AFQjCNERO0GwXWc7DLWZwSaqnjjjMTWMYg Divided They Blog] - a paper showing trackbacks between political blogs, mentioned by Ethan Zuckerman in his review of Cass Sunstein's Infotopia
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

March 20: Collective Action and Decision-making
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Johnson’s experiment of the maze, I like the idea that the group had discovered the optimal solution, and it would be interesting to demonstrate that it applies to the real world and not only in laboratory settings and classrooms. I think this would be even more interesting to analyze the relation to the phenomenon of the social networks, in which the mass decision and participation primes over a handful of people making what they think is better for the society. I think this experiment has more sense than the Victorian notions that humanity, as a group, is just a dumb herd. I don’t think this is a correct statement, nevertheless experiments like Sustein’s in which was demonstrated that people find it difficult to defy the will of a group, and may polarize to avoid interpersonal conflict are facts that should be carefully thought. The question is if in fact this applies also for Internet communities, in which there’s no personal contact and people feel freer to express whatever they want without fearing opposition and being different. In any case, what I like more in the Ethan Zuckerman Blog review of Infotopia is that in some cases the predictions are proven wrong, like the Sunstein’s predictions that if we can choose our own media we will isolate ourselves in an information cocoon. Therefore, deliberation could be proven to be an effective way to accumulate information.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 20:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Even though group intelligence is more difficult to measure than individual intelligence, I do believe that a crowd can outsmart a genius. Imagine for example, if a very intelligent physicist is isolated and only surrounded by other physicists, he/she maybe outstanding in this field, but is limited to what he/she can do. However, when allowed to collaborate with cell and molecular biologists, chemists, mechanical and electrical engineers, medical doctors, veterinarians, etc… a physicist learns to conduct cell mechanics, biophysics, molecular and biochemical experiments, and has the potential to solve health problems, such as coming up with a drug to relax airway smooth muscle cells during an asthma attack. When a group of diverse individuals collaborate, they can solve problems that they otherwise cannot solve individually. The internet has allowed this collaboration to increase globally through technologies such as Skype and E-mail. In some instances, group intelligence depends on its structure and dynamics. For example, Megan Garber, from Nieman Lab, reported that MIT researchers found that “[g]roup intelligence is correlated…with emotional intelligence, http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/05/mit-management-professor-tom-malone-on-collective-intelligence-and-the-genetic-structure-of-groups/. The researchers concluded that a group is more intelligent and is more likely to solve difficult problems when there are more women in it. Simply placing very smart individuals together in a group does not make a group smarter.
When I think of a very intelligent individual or genius, I think of my lab principal investigator, who has the ability to lead his lab members and make important decisions. However, he would have not made an informed decision without hearing the lab members deliberate. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 15:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the connection between the reality of crowd intelligence in "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" or marble-jar guessing and the concept of blog aggregates and online communities. It seems like this is a good argument against the dangers of cocooning at some levels. While a given blog/website community is likely there because they all subscribe to a certain set of interests or views, at least you know that if you're going to a big one you're probably getting the very best and most cohesive expression of those concepts. It may not make them right, but it adds value to them as a tool for educating yourself. Aggregates also will provide a balance to the problem that 1 or 2 of every group of 50 people will actually be more accurate than the group at guessing the number of marbles... but only in that one specific trial. If you follow one blogger religiously you are susceptible to their blind spots and moments where they were simply wrong. If you follow a collection of sites and blogs you will be exposed to the correct answers to most questions; whether you realize which is the correct answer is up to you haha. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 14:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles that we had to read for this week were very interesting to me. I really enjoyed how the first article focused on statistics regarding various experiments and “Who wants to be a millionaire”, a program which I personally loved watching. Even though I respect and find very interesting the point made regarding the percentages being higher and closer to the correct answer for groups and less accurate for individuals, I don’t agree. Math and Statistics aren’t my field and I must admit that I’m not very good at any of them but I feel off the top of my head that it is quite obvious that a group would obtain a higher and more accurate score than an individual because the general population or “average Joe” is likely to get fairly close to the right answer which can be higher or lower but of course adding all the higher scores to the lower ones, I find it to be mathematically obvious that we shall obtain an approximately correct average score. Therefore this being said I find the “Condorcet Jury Theorem”, mentioned in the third article to pretty much respect my personal opinion on the subject. In conclusion I very much enjoyed these articles and I find that in some way these theories emphasizing on group work and force are exactly what Democracy is about. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Collective action affects us everyday (or at least those of us that read news, shop, or blog online). For instance, if you use Reddit, most likely you're reading posts on the front page that were up-voted--a form of collective action. Zuckerman's article also points out "Amazon's collaborative filtering recs and Google's page rank algorithm." This had a huge effect on business (as we read in the long tail article, for example).

Sunstein has a valid point with ideological cocoons, but does seem flawed. I agree with Zuckerman and the others who labeled his idea as "alarmist." While it's entirely possible (as "Divided they Blog" suggests) for people to seek out news and sites with similar ideologies and have their beliefs continually reinforced, that is not necessarily the way most people 'read the news.' Greater exposure to new ideas or newspapers/news from far away, like the readings said, is a benefit that far outweighs the risk of people forming an ideological cocoon. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 18:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I realize we'll probably dig deeper into the topics of collective action and decision-making in the "Internet and Democracy" classes but I'd love to have a longer reading list on this topic. If anyone has any additional recommendations, please share. Thanks! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Assignment 3 Submissions

2012-03-20T19:39:28Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 20. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment3.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. '''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submission Instructions==

*Name:
*Description:
*Link to your outline:

Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:
<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}
</pre>

If used properly you should see the following:
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://foo.bar}}

You may also use some new templates for comments and responses.

<pre>
{{Comment|type your comment here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}

You can enter a response in a similar way:
<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>
Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Fabian Celis|Assignment 3: The Open University's Communities|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:OU_Outline_Fabian_Celis.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Stefan Cheplick|Assignment 3: Social Finance and StockTwits|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assingment_3_StockTwits_Social_Finance_by_SC.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Jeff Kimble|Assignment 3: eCommerce through the lens of Amazon|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Alexis Ditkowsky|Assignment 3: Collaborative Boards on Pinterest: Clearly Not a Primary Function of the Site|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-Berkman-Assignment3-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Harvard212|Message Efficacy on Broad Spectrum Platforms|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Harvard212_Assignment3.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Emanuele Dominici|Assignment 3: Jihadi Websites and US Counter-Terrorism Strategies|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|James Harris|Assignment 3: Digital Grassroots Campaigning|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_-_Assignment_-3_-_Outline.rtf}}--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

{{AssignmentInfo|Louis Celli|Assignment 3: The Android Revolution|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_3_CELLI_Outline_NEW_PROJECT.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|David Taber|Assignment 3: Coffee Shop v. Grocery Store: How architecture and code affect conversations on local news sites|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:David_Taber_outline_E-120.odt}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Marjolein Siegenthaler|Assignment 3: Outline project Airbnb.com|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_3_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Samantha Zakuto |Assignment 3: Social Media: The Public School Teacher's Edition |//http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment3SamanthaZakuto.pdf}}

File:OU Outline Fabian Celis.doc

2012-03-20T19:35:12Z

Fabiancelisj:

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-03-06T00:24:38Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 21. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments!'''

===Submissions===
 
Name: Stefan Cheplick 
Prospectus: Social Finance and StockTwits
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Social_Finance_Internet_and_Society.doc] 
Prospectus 2: Bitcoins (in development. for fun.)
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:InternetandSociety_Bitcoins_SJC.doc] 
Comments: 

Name: Sab 
Prospectus:
Free Online High-Quality Education: The Next Revolution on Internet?[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Sab_Assignment_2.doc_-_Copie.doc] 
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 13:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 

Hi Sab, I like your topic a lot because my project has to do also with distance education online. I’m working on the Open University case. It seems that you have a specific question that is related to the emergence of high-quality student-centric education system as a true public good, and I would say your question is good narrowed, but would be better if you work in just one of the cases of the four you mentioned—Sal Khan’s project, MITx, Harvard, and the London School of Economics. I’d like to know more about Khan’s project since we already know how the online paid degrees are in Harvard. Very interesting, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sabrina, I find your topic very interesting! I am curious to find out how the lack of interaction between students and teachers affect the quality of online versus offline education, and how you are going to measure it? Or if you are interested in exploring how the lack of students and teachers interaction affect the quality of education, I suggest comparing a community with interaction to one without. Best, Quynh. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Hello, Thanks for your comments. Intercations can be measured when you have forumn, lie lectures or section, wiki. Success is measurable by the rate of drop out, the rate of success, ect. Thanks again for helping me to be more precised. --[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Make sure to narrow your thesis to something you can study and argue in a quantifiable way, but this sounds like an interesting concept. How much will you be using our specific class as a source? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Our class is wonderful example of tools put in place to create interactivity between students and teachers. The quantitative part will be more an observation of the students community. When looking of forum, you can draw the best model that students are looking for. Therefore, I will try to find a way to quantify the criteria that students are looking for in an online education system.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sab. You picked a wonderful topic. I completed most of my undergraduate degree through distance education, and had experienced DL at various institutions and levels. I am glad to see someone is interested in the rich opportunities DL offers.

This prospectus covers a lot of topics. With the 10-page limit you may want to narrow down to one or two. I suggest

A. the first thing you could do is to define your subject – free online education websites (e.g. MIT OpenCourseWare, Ted Talk, etc) or DL facilitated by educational institutions (e.g. Harvard Extension School, University of London International Programmes, etc), as both serve different purposes and are operated differently.

B. Out of all the areas you wish to explore, I personally would love to read about “the economic model of free online education websites” as well as “the construction of the teacher and student interactive community”. I think the quality of education and professionalism of teachers are really institution-dependent. HES here is a leader in providing quality education and best teachers because the school obviously would not like to mess up the Harvard name *grin*. But I can imagine certain institutions may not stick to the same ideal. So I personally do not find this issue worthy of much ponderance.

As for copyright of the lectures, I think it’s an interesting issue as well. I’ve once asked Professor Allan Ryan, Harvard’s IP lawyer and the instructor of HES’ IP and Media Law courses, whether obtaining the copyright of the material we use in the DE courses is an issue. He replied that luckily , the US has a law that says using copyrighted material for educational purposes is considered fair use. So we are covered in most aspects. The relevant laws are 1) Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002, and 2) amendment to the US Copyright Law section 110(2). Hope this information helps! Yep, We have seen that in class. I wwas also suprised by the fair use for non profit education prurposes.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. In fact, I plan just to observe the student community and try to make a matricial scheme that let emerge a model as intercativity, professionnalism of the teacher, free degree, non degree, tradename, etc. Then, I will try to see the issues that such model rise like copyright, economic model--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sabrina, your project seems very interesting and I have always thought about education, degrees and online programs. I personally think that if a person wants an education he or she can do that either by means of a computer or by going to a library. On the other hand we must consider today’s job market and the requirements (degrees) to meet in order to obtain a good job. I am curious to read your findings and I would like to wish you good luck on your paper. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you so much--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great idea for a prospectus. Here are two of my immediate thoughts: I've often wondered if Khan Academy, for example, will someday be able to give out diplomas that employers respect? Since the release of Khan Academy I've noticed several other websites try to mimic it. Now Youtube is flooding with educational videos online(Google search results too). So, how will users of the Internet empower the best non-profit, online, community education platforms? [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting topic and, to a degree, it somewhat overlaps with my proposed topic to study Khan Academy. As for comments, I would just echo what some others have already mentioned: try to limit the scope of your thesis. There is a lot of material to cover, and we only have so many pages. I am struggling with this myself.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sab - interesting topic. I'd second (or third) the others in narrowing your thesis. DL is a huge topic. Looking forward to reading your conclusions! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--[[User:YHHsiao|YHHsiao]] 10:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: You-Hwa Hsiao 
Prospectus:
ACTA and the protests – a reaction to the governmental control extending into the cyber world[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Hsiao_assignment2.pdf] 
Comments: 
Hi You-Hwa, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) sounds like a very interesting topic. I'm curious to hear more about how you plan to monitor the anti-ACTA community while you explore the impact of ACTA on online behavior. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Hi You-Hwa Hsiao, I like the theme you propose and think it is narrowed to the ACTA case. You mention the question of how the ACTA galvanizes the Internet community, and that you want to follow the rest of the semester the development of this event. In this way, I would suggest your work to be more in an analytical sense than informative, developing interesting discussions and analysis with the information you will gather. Interesting topic, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I like your prospectus and your topic is relevant. In particular, I find it interesting that hacking and cyberattacks are viewed as a sign of protest and that this protest element has assumed nontraditional forms. I think that you are covering a lot of ground with your thesis and you may want to focus on a particular dimension of ACTA/response to ACTA.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I really like how you're exploring some issues of online vs. physical life in your topic. I'm interested to see not just how your project develops but how your subject develops between now and the end of the course; it's such a current and evolving thing that you may get to study some really great major events related to it even in such a short span of time! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your topic is very relevant and I look forward to reading you paper. I am very curious to learn about these common (are they?) norms and values of the people in the virtual world vs those in the physical world and what it is exactly that they are protesting against [[User:MSS|MSS]] 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I think your topic is very much related to the course and I will suggest the Lessig framework. I will also be interested in profiling the internet users that protest on and offline. Good luck!--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 18:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi You-Hwa, you raised many interesting questions in your prospectus. I am interested in finding out how the ACTA impact online behaviors, specifically, what are they trying to protect with the opposition? [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 10:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You-Hwa, I appreciate your prospectus. It is indeed interesting in how some hacker groups are protesting by attacking websites. I think the term for these people is Hacktivists? Not sure. In regards to your paper, I am incredibly interested in how the hacker groups develop their Hacktivsim. What is their management structure? Where do they organize? How does someone become a member? [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool topic. I too am very intrigued by the whole community of hacker groups that protest by attacking websites. My only comment is that I had a difficult time truly understanding what you will be measuring when you speak of online life and virtual life. It would seem like each would have infinite things to measure, and it might be beneficial to define a short list so that the universe of things measured is well defined.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very relevant topic. Seems like you will have a lot of research. How exactly do you intend to study or measure this? Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 10:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Harvard212 
Prospectus: Being Nice and Free Speech on the Internet[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Harvard212_Assignment2.pdf] 
[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 16:34 EST, 21 February 2012 
Comments: 

Hi Harvard212, I think you would have to apply what Rob said in class: cut your project in half, then in half, and whatever is left in third. This is not to say your topic is not interesting, I think it is, but—in my opinion—the question is very broad, and I would suggest to you to choose one part of being “nice” on the Internet, for example what kind of Etiquette can you find in a specific community (like we already analyzed in the Wikipedia’s case), or in a specific bloggers’ web page. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi @Harvard212, I'd love to hear more about the community you plan to study. It sounds like you've lined up a good framework for starting your review and it's now a matter of narrowing down the scope. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

Agreed, this is certainly an interesting concept (what does "nice" mean? what are its implications? is it universal?) and I'll be interested to see how you narrow it down to a controlled topic for study. Be careful not to give yourself too much; tons of background research is great but its real value often comes when you can focus it on something very specific [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sofia, I like your project very much but I too feel that it might be a bit too extensive. My suggestion would be to focus more on a single or few specific parts and then it will definitely be a great paper. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your project is ambitious and deals with philosophical/sociological questions regarding the expansive internet and how norms can benefit the entire community. While I am not sure if a general set of norms can be established with millions of users from across the world with their own agendas and online needs, obviously Wikipedia would be a good example of norms being established and these norms are established within the websites themselves. Are you focusing more on norms or norms "as set by law"? How do norms of one website vary with another similar website based on the needs of the consumer? Good start.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. Very curious to see if you are able to find an universal meaning of "nice". I do hope you have found someone to work in a group with, as this seems like a very extensive topic and corresponding reasearch. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Harvard212, Interesting topic, but to narrow it down, I suggest choosing an online community, such as Wikipedia, and see how the "be nice" rule plays out. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 11:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would just reiterate what certain others have pointed out above: (i) finding a definition of "nice" may be difficult and (ii) you may benefit from tightening the scope of your work. Otherwise, I think it looks like an outstanding area for research.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You certainly picked an interesting thesis! Do you plan to focus on wikipedia only, or several online communities? May be helpful to make a comparison of the social norms on various platforms. Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: BSK342 
Prospectus: Community, Architecture, and Regulation in the Something Awful Forum Space
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Bsk342assignment2.pdf] 
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi BSK342, I really like your topic because part of the daily junk I find on the Internet comes from them. I know there are some very interesting forums and they have reliable information, but most of the time the information is just incomplete or not worthy to read. I only wonder how are you going to follow how members of the community engage in other spaces, because I think is quite difficult. Very interesting, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool topic. I'm particularly interested in what you observe/learn about people's willingness to pay for additional services. So often websites/applications/businesses struggle with how to monetize a good idea - perhaps your research will shed some light on this for managers of online communities. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I think your project sounds interesting and you are asking many questions that applies to all types of forums and online social behavior. Although I am not familiar with the Something Awful forums, I agree with Aditkowsky that it is interesting that the site does charge a subscription fee to post comments. This could be an interesting point of departure. Is the quality of the content stronger if people are paying for access? Does the subscription fee filter out those who may not be as serious about the forum? Good work.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I definitely remember SA as a site I visited a lot when I was younger, I'm really looking forward to hearing what it has evolved into during the past years! The focus on how sites manage to monetize themselves is a very good one, and one that always seems to be such a make or break moment. I feel like SA is a place that tends to cater towards younger and more internet savvy viewers/members... how does that affect the process of attempting to gain profit off of it? Are they more likely to pay to support something they care about, or are they less likely than an older person with less internet experience who is used to paying for everything? Have fun! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. There are many of these sites which have proliferated content across the WWW. Although, I see it in trends. Goregallery was one of these sites, then it was worth1000, something awful, and so on. I think that users get a laugh out of it. It used to be emails, then it was myspace, facebook, and so on and so forth. Perhaps there is something more human in needing to share these laughs based in norms?
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 03:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also particularly interested on the monetary part of your research questions. Will quality be better when paid for? Will people feel even more connected to the forum when they pay for it (us vs them?) Would it be the same if they made it free or the amount to be paid at the discretion of the user (the article of Chris Anderson,"the Long Tail" see class readings for February 14, 2012 might be useful.[[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi BSK342, I think you made an interesting proposal. I am interested in finding out why people would pay for this forum. Perhaps it is the "privilege" people buy for $9.99? I think your approach of observing how the policies and guidelines play out in practice is good. I suggest that you pick another forum (one without a privilege fee) to compare it with. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am very interested in your topic, but struggled with two items: valuation and monetization. It was unclear to me how you might value the content in order to set the price. It was then unclear to me how that content may be monetized. I think it may just have been because it is such a short space to cover all these details. Good luck with the project.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how you will be able to determine the motivation behind paying for the ability to post in the forums? Also think your results will be very interesting! I agree with Qdang about making a comparison. Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Blake Geno 
Prospectus: Anonymity, Privacy and Evolving Tools
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Blakegeno_prospectus.odt] 
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 
Hi Blake, in thinking about your project, it might be interesting to select a few sites using [http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/108/ facebook connect] and evaluate how this option can impact user privacy and anonymity. It seems like this could sync up with the themes you discuss in your prospectus while also narrowing the scope. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Hi Blake Geno, when you say you intend to do: “I., II., III.” I would say only one of those items should be your topic. All three of them are very interesting and surely you would find substantial information. For example, I’ve read that Facebook do not really respect anonymity entirely, that when you decide to close your page they keep the information, and also their policies change very often, and this affect the users. Do we really have privacy and anonymity in Facebook? Good luck, interesting proposals.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Blake. Your project does pose some significant questions as to the types of data that sites like Facebook collect and what that information is used for. You can define the goal of collecting information into two categories; positive (improving the user experience) and negative (selling the information for marketing purposes). Great research question. Hopefully you will be able to focus on more specific dimension of this important.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in how exactly you are going to go about this. It could be really neat to create a whole persona with the relevant info that a website wants and then try and link it across a large number of sites that demand a log in/personal info/etc. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blake, Very interesting topic! Facebook was recently the focus of CNBC 60 min., and lights were shed on the topics you are discussing in our paper, especially the targeted adversising. In the show, I remember someone saying that FB advertising was an entirely different ballgame, as people on Facebook are not travelling from A to B but like to stay on the FB page and thus "want" to be distracted by advertising, whereas advertising in a traditional way aims on how to advertise for people who are going from one website to another and are not looking for distraction. I think that this would be very intersting for your project. If you google Facebook, CNBC and 60 min, you will probably find the show. Also, this article I just read on Forbes by Kashmir Hill, called "Facebook user unwittingly becomes sex lube pitchman thanks to sponsored stories", dated Feb 28, 2012, may interest you. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Blake, your prospectus is thought-provoking and as a Facebook user I would be very interested in your findings. I do however feel that it could get a bit complicated for what concerns the appropriate research but keep up with the good work. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi BlakeGeno, your prospectus contains many interesting and ambitious questions. As a suggestion, you can narrow it down by asking what effect does user identification have on the end user? Does the requirement of user identification prevent spamming and abusive comments? I am interested in finding out how you are going to answer this. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 12:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Timely topic. Given the recent news on Facebook and Google and their collection of data, this is sure to be a rapidly growing area of research. If you haven't already considered it, I would be interested in learning about data collection by an entity like Facebook or Google and the relationship with tethered devices. How far does this information gathering extend without our even knowing it?
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blake - sounds like you have your work cut out for you. you may want to narrow it down to only a few sites. will you study Google+ and Google's new privacy policy? [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Abby Bergman 
Prospectus Title: Pinterest: Visually Arrested 
Link to Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:ABergman_Prospectus.pdf] 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 Comments: 

Hi Abby, I think your proposal is very interesting, especially because it is addressing a topic we have covered in the course: the Fair Use in Copyright. I would say your results will be useful for this course because they promise to be a good example of what it is Fair Use. Good luck! great choice.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abby, I applaud you for finding something meaty to explore with Pinterest. I'm curious as to how you will monitor instances of reported infringement on the site. Perhaps you could figure out which companies complain the most and then intentionally post their images so you can experience Pinterest's process for addressing potential infringement firsthand? (Maybe run that by one of the lawyers in class first....) Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I think you raise some important questions in regards to copyright laws and Fair Use. Your questions are relevant and you have a good thesis question. I checked out pinterest.com for the first time now and I think the Fair Use argument is validated. Good job with the prospectus!
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a really well thought out project; you know exactly the frame you want to look at this through and I think you'll come up with some very relevant conclusions. Studying a site that is still on its way up will definitely give you a chance to keep this going and check your theories against what happens with Pinterest over the next year or two! Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Your topic, questions and overall frame are very clear. Very curious about the outcome, I would think the hosting aspect is the sting. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abby, recently Pinterest is popping up everywhere. I think you have a good focus by exploring the possibility for copyright infringement. Your methodology, comparing Pinterest and Google Images, and investigating Pinterest's policy on using copyrighted material and the court's opinion in Perfect 10 vs Google case, is well planned out . Good job on your proposal! [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting line of research on a site that is clearly extremely hot right now. I am impressed with your level of focus this early on in the process (review of cases, case study comparisons). Good luck with this project.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jennifer Lopez 
Prospectus title: The New Era of Online Activism 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_2.pdf Final Project Prospectus] [[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments:

Hi Jennifer, I like your proposal of analyzing online activism sites like change.org, purpose.com, avaaz.org, although I think you should choose one of these for your project. I also think the effectiveness of online activism has been proven, because we have seen cases like the Arab Spring, the Occupy Wall Street and the Bank of America’s decision to rescind it’s proposal, but what I like of your project is that you will explain how they were effective and how the organizations began. Very interesting, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jennifer, I'm very much looking forward to seeing your video interviews once they come together. In additional to the perspectives of founders, I'm also interested to hear more from the participants in the campaigns you study. Perhaps you could reach out to community members as well. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Interviews is a neat way to go about this project and this is an issue that always bothers me; just how much does power or activism on the internet translate to real impacts on people's lives? Be careful to research without being biased though; as much as I generally agree with you that online activism is real-world effective, there may be some instances where it wasn't, and that could be just as interesting! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is very relevant with the current affairs of United States and the world. I think it is safe to conclude that online protest movements are making a serious impact on political and social issues. As you continue your research, I would focus on how online protest movements are effective. I think your reference to Benkler's work is a good step in that direction. I think you should also explore the notion of empowerment and whether online protest sites may foster personal empowerment in the same and different ways as more traditional protest movements. What mechanisms were the same and different with the SOPA, Susan Komen and Bank of America online movements?
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Looking forward to see the video's! I second the idea of Aditkowsky with regard to the views of actual participants and also if these differ from the views of the founders. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting line of research and something that I believe is highly relevant to the real world. I would be interested in learning about what has led to the success of certain online movements and what has led to the failure of others. If you were able to boil down a set of common characteristics to successful movements, that would be impressive.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it may be a good idea to also interview participants so that you can hear their perspective on participating as well as feeling like they are working towards effecting change. Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 23:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jennifer, interviewing Jeremy Heimans and creating video clips is an exciting approach to gather your data. I also like your idea of doing case studies, but perhaps just picking one from one site? [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Just Johnny 
Prospectus: Assignmnt 2
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Johnny_Assignment2.doc The Social Network] 
Comments: A social network will be constructed for the course. Feel free to contact, as this may be a possible group project. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Just Johnny, although you mention social networks as your primary study for the final project, you address code, architecture, human behavior, interaction, norms inside it. I couldn’t grasp what was the main question you proposed, is it about the architecture of the social networks? If so, what is the discussion you’re presenting? Good luck on narrowing.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi @Just Johnny, I'm intrigued by your idea for creating a social network. You write that "code will be the law which dictates behavior within the site". I'd love to hear more about the underlying concept and specific vision for the site and how you plan to restrict choice and behavior through code. Also, what is the appeal of your site vs. the numerous other social networking sites and forums available to users? What is your value proposition? Looking forward to seeing how your site evolves over the rest of the semester. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 
You certainly are undertaking an ambitious project and I think your conclusions can be fascinating. I agree with a few points/questions made by Aditkowsky. From what I gather, you would like to create a Wikipedia-esque social network in which the content/services are generated by the users in a dynamic environment. You also mentioned that a screening process may be required to preserve the integrity of the site. Is this site intended to be a study or actually lead to a practical site that people would want to join? If so, I would imagine that some core service or services may need to be created to attract and motivate users to contribute to the site (i.e. Wikipedia and information). Good luck on this very ambitious concept.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As the others have mentioned, wow! Very difficult and ambitious project, I'll definitely be following it closely. As Jimmyh mentioned, are you shooting for a broader appeal or do you think you will need to tweak your concept to focus heavily on one area in order to carve out a niche for yourself? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Very ambitious and interesting indeed! It is however not really clear to me what it is what your aiming for directly, as the focus seems pretty broad. Very curious to see how this project will turn out. Good luck with narrowing it down.
[[User:MSS|MSS]] 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My comments are similiar to those above: first, very impresseive. Second, I had a tough time understanding the specific focus of the project. I think it sounds very interesting and I look forward to seeing how it all comes together.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You've laid out a monster of a project! Sounds fascinating. I'm also not sure what your focus/thesis is? Perhaps clarifying or narrowing your focus would be helpful. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 23:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Fabian Celis J 
Prospectus title: The Role of the Internet in Distance Education: The Open University Case 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fabian_Celis_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Hi Fabian, studying distance learning in the Internet age seems like a great topic - and very appropriate - for this class. One aspect that I'd like to hear more about is the creation of a classroom community despite geography. You might even consider using our class as a test case. For example, I attend class in person but for the past two weeks, I've been using Adobe Connect to participate in the robust discussion that's happening among students who are primarily not in the classroom. In a hybrid class like ours, how do you break down the wall that separates "distance" and "in-person" students to create a more cohesive community? What architecture, systems, and culture do you need to make it work? [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I know you are attending this class (whether online or in person) but is there a chance you could also take the time to really dig into OU? It would be interesting to see the different ways people that use it view it as a resource; clearly everyone does not approach it with the same background, goals, or skills [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Distance education is a great aspect of how the internet has changed how we learn as individuals. I took my first live online course last semester using a program called Elluminate and I would check out how these types of interfaces can change the entire process of how classes (particularly discussion-based classes) are taught and how students can interact with other individuals from across the whole country and the entire world. A comparison of how unique methodologies specific to online education improves the entire classroom experience when compared to traditional in-classroom methods would be a good approach. Great subject and good luck with your work.

It appears you and Sab have similar topics. They both touch the distance education aspect. You should look at the two comments I've left Sab for additional feedback. I also have my cents to chime in regards to your paper. My first thought about open universities was to think of open communities on the Internet. So, wikipedia comes to mind. It would be interesting if there are any similarities or parallels in the development of an open university and an open encyclopedia. For one, both need dedicated users who are willing to operate, and care for their open platform. So my main suggestion here is to look at other open communities for similarities, and differences. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Great topic, very current. I agree with Jimmyh that a comparison to traditional class room education would be very interesting. Looking forward to see how this turns out. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fabian, it looks like we are studying similiar concepts. I am analyzing Khan Academy and its potential uses in developing nations for education. I would be interesting in sharing ideas as we continue with our research. Let me know if you would be interested.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: André Pase and Priscila Lollo 
Prospectus title: When two worlds collide, digital TV and online video in an age of transformation 
Research Focus: online video x tv 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assigment2_andrepase_priscilalollo.pdf Assignment 2] 
[[User:Andrepase|Andrepase]] 20:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi André and Priscila, is this the question you’re proposing: can the laws for the traditional medium change the development of new one? and are you going to work on this question through the Brazilian case?[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi André and Priscilla, I'm looking forward to learning more about how the Brazilian government and Brazilian companies and users are adapting to the changes in video delivery systems. I'm curious to hear more about the framework you plan to use for exploring the topic and I was also wondering if there is a specific community that you plan to follow. Since much of the class' focus seems to be on US and European examples, I think the Brazilian focus will be very interesting. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Agreed with Alexis, having this focus outside of the general scope of the class will be a great resource for all of us as far as a fresh perspective and (probably) some interesting takes on the same issues that we haven't considered! I'll be curious to see how the flow of information and law and etc. go back and forth in Brazil and this Brazilian online space. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am really fond of your dual country approach too! Maybe for a community you can use You Tube users vs a Brazilian equivalent (if any)? [[User:MSS|MSS]] 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic certainly has wide applications to how we view television in the modern age and legal discussions will certainly abound as a result. While I sense that you are examining the laws and market dynamics of the Brazilian model, I think you may want to hone in on a particular aspect of law as it relates to online television. Does a particular legal or governing aspect of the Brazilian model properly address piracy? How does the market shape the governance of online television? --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. A lot of media experts are trying to make sense of the convergence between digital TV and online video. Though really no one knows where it is headed. I personally recommend you look at some blog posts from Albert Wegner, a venture capitalist for Union Square Ventures. He thinks that television advertisements will get crushed almost exactly the same way print advertisements have suffered. Another thing I would consider looking into is the community building and social networking aspect behind digital video. For example, YouTube and Vimeo have rich interfaces where users can create their own television network, interact with their audience in real-time, and seamlessly collaborate with other users like them. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I love the comparative aspect of the proposal. I am very interested in learning how Brazil's legal structure might enable or limit the use of online video, especially realtive to US regulations.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Prospectus title: [http://pinterest.com/ Pinterest] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-BerkmanAssignment2-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Hi Alexis, I saw the Pinterest page and found it very interesting! You pose some very interesting topics in your proposal: the role of women in…?, “off-brand” style of Pinterest, and Pinterest’s norms, but I encourage you to choose one of them because for me still wasn’t clear which is your main question. Good luck with your project.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexis,
I would like to offer two sources which may be useful to supplement your research. The first, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), are a list of 8 goals adopted by the United Nations in an effort to eradicate poverty by the year 2015. Several of the goals involve online access for poor countries, and one goal specifically addresses gender equality. [http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals Millennium Goals Main Site] And the second source, [http://www.tigweb.org Taking IT Global], is rich in content and will provide a wealth of information and resource material. Good luck with your project, it looks interesting and informative.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

@Louiscelli Thanks so much! I will check these out. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

That's fascinating that 80% of Pinterest users are women; do you think that this gender ratio will become more balanced as pinterest gains public fame/acceptance? I'd love to see how far you can push "off brand" uses of the site since I am always very interested in the (often incredibly clever or useful) ways in which sites end up providing something totally outside their original concept. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexis, great topic! As for sites for marginalized communities by and for (mostly) women, maybe "gardenmoms" is also an interesting community to explore. It is a parenting resource website, where parents (mostly moms) ask questions to one another and exchange information. I am a member myself and think it may be right up your alley. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 03:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest does sound powerful from my limited familiarity with the website and I think your approach toward examining social norms should lead to interesting conclusions.What social norms you are focusing on? You mentioned the discrepancies between males and females in internet usage. Is this a particular norm that you will be focusing on? What feature are you examining in the "community versus collection of individuals" norm? Sounds like an interesting topic and good luck!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Alexis, sounds like a great project and already from your prospectus I have learned things that I wasn’t aware of. I agree with Louis on his suggestion of looking at the UN and their info. Good luck on your project! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is great that you are exploring Pinterest. It has gotten a ton of media publicity over the last few weeks. It is incredible that 80% of its users are female without ever openly saying it is a site for one gender or the other. What does this say about the community around Pinterest? The design, aesthetics, and layout? I ask myself if there will someday be the "Pinterest model" where a female specific website should look and function a certain way. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent topic and I would love to learn more about it as it relates closely to my work. I work with the MDGs and helping traditionally excluded populations (women and the poor) reach those goals. If you look into the literature on adolescent girls, secondary education and economic growth, you might find some interesting information on how this could be applied.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: James Harris 
Prospectus title: The Internet and “Bridging the Gap” in Politics 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_Assignment_2.doc Prospectus] 
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi James, I think your work will be unique because you’re addressing the internet in the political field. I personally suggest to dismiss some parts of your proposal and focus on the question you’re proposing of how social media does create the empowerment and populist energy, and you can do it with the good example of the former Vermong Governor. Through this example you can answer the questions you propose of the quick spread of information, the strategies of campains, and the flexibility of politicians due to this phenomenon. Good luck, very interesting field![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi James,
I love the concept, I’m just a little fuzzy on the thesis. Is the main focus going to concentrate on the elected-official/constituent relationship, or the paradigm shift of political campaign support? [[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi James, this is a great topic not only because of the timing but also because online campaigning and fundraising have had four years to evolve since the Dean and Obama campaigns in 2007/2008. One aspect you might decide to hone in on is the relationship of politicians to their constituents on their social networking sites. For example, Sarah Palin has been known to ban commenters who disagree with her viewpoint and Anthony Weiner used twitter to send provocative messages to his followers. Those are two high-profile ways of engaging or disengaging with followers but it might be interesting to look at a politician or two who actively foster an online community and respond thoughtfully and collaboratively to criticism vs. politicians who use social media as a one-way communications street. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Taking the idea of evolution of online fundraising and campaigning, and their effects, even farther, I was reading today that one of the Republican party leadership's major reasons for supporting SuperPACs (besides the obvious) is that they felt it evened the playing field against Obama moneywise. Even though he too obviously benefits from major donations to his SuperPACs, some Republican strategists explained that the gap between his ability to raise millions in small increments and the ability of any Repub. candidate to try and do the same was just far too large to overcome. So, Citizen's United is also in some ways related to this topic! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great topic! As for different marketing on FB, please see my comments on Blakes prospectus above. I also very interested to see how the quick spread of information influences the political process, as this is indeed a (relative) novum, especially in politics. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool topic. You may want to look into some of the background on the White House's social media initiative that was launched some time ago as well as some of the background on how members of the congress and senate have been using social media. I know alot of them have scrambled to set up social media teams to capitalize on the new media. It might be interesting to compare those who failed to use it wisely and those whe thrive with it. Some of those characteristics could be applied to campaign funding.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Prospectus Title: Social Structure's on the Writer's Forums of Cracked.com 
Research Focus: [http://www.cracked.com/ Cracked] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_2.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Hi Alex, I saw the Cracked.com webpage, very interesting and funny! It seems you have a narrowed work to work in, because you propose to main questions to develop in your investigation : freedom of expression, and norms within the site. When you mention this is a good example of a very successful mix of controlled format and elite members of a website to control the power, I’d like to know what are your thoughts, do you agree? Is this essential to run a website like this? Good luck, interesting website![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex,
Is this line correct – “free to enter forum”? I don’t understand what that means. This looks like it will be an interesting project. I wonder if the editors will be surprised by your findings, or possibly take issue with your conclusion, depending on the outcome. I am really looking forward to reading your paper.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

@Louiscelli I was trying to express that it is a closed forum in that you need an invite to enter, but that the invite is freely given as long as you bother to ask for it; thus it is a "free to enter" forum but not a totally open one. I just phrased it terribly awkwardly. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, unsolicited suggestion here but it would be really funny if your final project was formatted like a Cracked article and you gave the class an opportunity to post comments before the final submission. Then you could pull together a final version and comment on the process as it relates back to Cracked. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, great topic, very curious to see what your outcomes will be, especially on the question who decides and (maybe even more) on what grounds and how static vs dynamics plays a role in that aspect. I second Alexis' idea of a Cracked article format. Good luck![[User:MSS|MSS]] 03:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alex, you have an interesting challenge with your empirical research project since the answers to your research questions will require you to be actively involved in the whole article submission process. Do you plan on approaching the website in a similar way that the class approached the Wikipedia assignment? Good luck!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, your project seems very fun and interesting. I wasn’t aware of cracked.com before reading your prospectus. I would definitely suggest looking at the 1st amendment of the constitution but because of the complexity of the subject you could also consider looking at specific Supreme Court decisions. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of cracked.com. I had not come across it before. I can't help it, but I agree with Aditkowsky's idea of submitting a cracked article format.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Jeff Kimble 
Prospectus title: Internet E-Commerce 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_2.doc] 
[[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi Jeff, your project remembers me the phrase “buyers who bought this also bought this,” and the story of the author that became famous because of the long tail phenomenon. I think from the six questions you propose, number one encloses all of the other and it’s your starting point. Good luck with your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,
While I am sure there will be plenty of studies that address this, it will be nice to see the data synthesized, analyzed, and compacted into a short paper. You certainly will have lots of data to pour through. I will be particularly interested in some of your research as it will complement my project as well. Good luck, and if I run across any statistics that may be beneficial to your research, I’ll be sure to forward it along.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

Be careful not to get too broad with your data collection and lose sight of a focus, but this sounds really neat. One interesting aspect might be considering age. Aditkowsky's comment about the difference between perception and reality with online markets and community rings true to me, and I think the fact that I'm 22 has a lot to do with that. My parents are 65 and no force on Earth could convince them to use an online market over a brick and mortar one if there was any conceivable chance that the good existed in both formats. Anyway, enjoy! I'm looking forward to reading your results. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, one thing you might consider exploring is how some people feel that e-commerce signals the end of a community even though many e-commerce sites actually promote a sense of community (e.g. etsy) and bring people together in spite of their geographical differences. This [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/12/independent_bookstores_vs_amazon_buying_books_online_is_better_for_authors_better_for_the_economy_and_better_for_you_.html Slate article] and the flurry of comments might be interesting for you to check out, although it doesn't focus on the online community angle. Cheers! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a great topic and I like your approach. From what I can tell, you are dealing with a variety of discussion topics. From a personal standpoint, I would recommend focusing on how online shopping has changed consumer behavior. This direct can provide great insight into how these online sites market themselves. Good topic and good luck! --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Louis Celli 
Prospectus title: e-commerce Taxation 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_2_CELLI_Research_Prospectus.doc The Future of e-commerce Taxation] 
Comments: 

Hi Louis, your topic is interesting since it deals with taxation across states, I just would say you have to choose less questions from the list you’re proposing in order to have a more specific theme to work on during your research. It’s also valuable that you want to propose an e-commerce tax structure for all the states, but how are you going to measure the impacts and its viability? Good luck with your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Louis, your project sounds really interesting - I'm looking forward to seeing how your research comes together and what your final recommendations are. The scope does seem a bit daunting, though. Perhaps you could focus in on the impact to sellers and buyers, for example, and on the changed transaction experience for users. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 23:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

This sounds very ambitious and interesting, not to mention extremely relevant. The flat tax concept sounds workable and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing your results; I also selfishly hope you really delve into the legal/historical precedents for all of this quite a lot, since I love history and I feel like that's an area that could bear quite a lot of original thought. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Louis, I really like your topic a lot. I think it is great that you are actually doing research to reach an potential taxation solution/recommendation, which I assume will form the basis of your argument. Good work!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Louis your project seems very interesting and it will be definitely exploring a very problematic world. I was just curious of one aspect, and I hope I didn’t get this wrong but you are trying to develop a tax system for all of the 50 states correct? And if so, my feelings are that it could be a bit complicated to have all 50 states agree on one tax rate. Do you think this will be a major issue or it can easily be overcome? Also, you probably have thought of this already since you mentioned constitutional aspects but I just thought of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 while first reading your prospectus. Anyways it sounds really interesting and I will have great pleasure in reading it once it will be completed. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Prospectus title: Terrorist Websites 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Emanuel, your topic is very interesting, I assume you will research those laws that go in favor, or at least don’t prevent these terrorist organizations of continuing their activities. It would be interesting to know what legislation acts due to the foreign nature of these organizations. Good luck with your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Emanuele,
This is going to be an exciting paper indeed. This is a whopper and you might have trouble containing it to 10 pages. The First Amendment question might be a great place to start, then begin to wind in the Patriot act, while comparing it to the Espionage act of 1917. I can’t wait to read this paper, good luck![[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi Emanuele, very interesting topic. I'm trying to remember the show I listened to over the summer about infiltrating online forums that are used for recruiting new members. The story also touched on the use of video games for recruitment. I'll send the link once I remember what the show is.... Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 23:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I'd had this idea/had the sort of expertise and background you do to do it justice. I'm curious about how you'll make distinctions between "terrorist websites" that exist with the specific purpose of encouraging/recruiting to/supporting terrorism and simply anti-U.S. or very pro-militant Islam. The line is so blurry as to barely exist in most cases, which is obviously where the gov't runs into so much trouble in these types of efforts. Really looking forward to this one. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Emanuele, You are engaging into a very difficult and complex element of the internet. The American-born cleric who was recently killed in Yemen heavily relied on the internet to communicate with terrorists and many of the foiled terrorist attempts are linked to him. I think he would be a good starting point in your research. Good luck.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your precious advice and nice comments, I will definitely take into consideration your comments and I do realize that I have to narrow it down a bit. Thanks again![[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Julia Brav 
Prospectus title: [http://ask.metafilter.com/ Ask MetaFilter] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Jlynnping
 

Hi Julia, I think your project will be interesting, and as for Brendan Long’s proposal about Q&A sites, I’d like to know more about the level of reliability of the answers one can find in this type of sites, and also who decides if the information is right or wrong. I’m not familiar with Q&A sites so I’m sure your project will help me to understand their structure better and how they function. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Julia, I really like how interactive your project is and how participating in the community is an important part of your research methodology. While moderation and desire for quality are two reasons why people might choose Ask MeFi over other sites, I'd be curious to hear more about how you find the quality and depth of responses on the site. For example, while other Q&A sites might be more of a free-for-all, are there times when quantity is of greater benefit than tightly proscribed quality? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 01:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm still not convinced that I'd be willing to pay the $5 when it's so easy to get info from other sources on the web, especially if you know how to look. I like how involved in one community your project is (mine is similar in that I'm really trying to get a feel for a specific site and a specific group). I'm interested to hear more about how their process works! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your paper sounds fairly broad at this point. I think it is interesting how the website moderators are actively involved with the content of the website and how they interact or dictate the social norms would be interesting. Good luck.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah Metafilter is interesting. As its competitors in Yahoo Answers, Google Answers, Facebook, and Quora. MetaFilter fascinates me, however, because it does have the same venture capital funding or silicon valley press like the competitors I've listed above. How has it managed to keep its community intact? What is driving the content and hits on Google? I'll be interested to see why and how the MetaFilter community is better structured than its rivals. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Prospectus title: Managing a Flexible Work/Life Balance: Legal Ramifications of Facebook 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:2012_02_-_SZakuto_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Hi Samantha, your topic is very interesting, of course offense is evident in the cases you gave as examples, but your question of why one employee was fired and the other not is the starting point of your investigation. As for the prohibition in Missouri of having contact between teachers and students, it seems unfair and this would not prevent ruinning the reputation of others, so the results of your investigation abouth the legislation applied in these cases promess to be interesting. Good Luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Samantha, this is a really interesting topic and there are numerous directions you could take it. If you're interested in honing in on the relationship between offline and online behavior and speech, I can send over a bunch of readings about student free speech in schools. Additionally, the boundary between online/in school is still hotly debated - the Supreme Court recently refused to hear appeals related to online attacks against school officials and students ([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/court-rejects-appeals-in-_0_n_1210399.html Huffington Post]). Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea that is sadly relevant to my life and I suspect many others in the class. I don't really like having a Facebook and I police it pretty carefully, but it's also the only way I have of contacting the vast majority of people who are my Facebook friends. I'm especially interested on the ways in which the location you access a site from (home vs. school or work) can impact how liable you are for punishment. That is a very interesting and muddy intersection of internet life and brick and mortar life. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is very interesting and pertinent to many issues we face today. I think that there is a battle between free speech and the effects of that free speech in the professional sphere. Even though, say, a school teacher does have the constitutional freedom to write some bigoted post on his or her Facebook page, the effects of that speech can be pronounced on that person's school. In a number of cases, teachers are either suspended or dismissed for Facebook comments in which there are two sides; those who say that he is simply exercising free speech and those who believe that no one of that opinion should be teaching children. Interesting topic.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Nicholas Thibodeau 
Prospectus title: Anonymous 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Thibodeau_Assignment_2.pdf] 
Comments: 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Nicholas, your topic is very interesting, although there are limited resources of information of anonymous, as you mention. As I have understood, anyone can be part of anonymous, that’s what it is so difficult to identify their structure and how they function, but perhaps the more interesting part of your investigation would be why have they been successful in some cases. Good luck in your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas, I'm looking forward to learning more about Anonymous in your final report. While this may lead you to murky legal waters, it would be cool if you could find a way to engage with the community in some way, or at least explore the process of how one becomes a part of Anonymous. Here's what came up first when I Googled "how do you join anonymous": [http://thehackernews.com/2011/03/how-to-join-anonymous-hacker-identity.html The Hacker News]. It's very Matrix-y. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Absolutely something I want to learn more about, looking forward to this. If you find a way to contact them (or research this otherwise but not sure how you would) I'm very curious about the number of people versus the actions performed by Anonymous. Is it a broad based group? Is it just a few key individuals who do the most high-profile things, simply supported by a large group that agrees with those actions? etc. Good luck finding them! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nicholas. Your topic sounds challenging since there doesn't seem to be a spokesman representing this movement or public statements. You will also be exploring how the "political protest" intersects with online technology. Are there other hacker groups like Anonymous? Are their tactics the same or different than Anonymous? Good luck with your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Quynh Dang 
Prospectus title: [http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Agj1j2NWf7soiMwgqNKlvo6e5HNG;_ylv=3 Yahoo! Answers] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Quynh_Dang_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Quynh Dang, the Q&A sites are a new topic for me, so I hope throughout your project I’ll became more familiar with them. As for the Julia’s project and Brendan Long’s project, which are also addressing this topic like yours, I’d like to know how do they manage the level of reliability of the answers. I also would like to see the results of your investigation, especially the part of the incentives they give to promote the participation of more people. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Quynh, two things come to mind when reading your prospectus. 1) What's the value to you of having more points, particularly since there isn't a chat function and the users are anonymous? 2) You might want to connect with Julia Brav, who is evaluating Ask MetaFilter. Perhaps you could develop some sort of collaboration? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely talk to Julia Brav, you have an interesting opposite to her project's subject in some ways, especially with what behaviors are encouraged within the site. I assume that simply by getting so much information, sheer mass filters out the worst effects of a totally open system... but maybe not? The point system seems like an equal motivator to both useful and spammy and unhelpful activities, so I'll be curious what your conclusions are about how that plays out in actuality. Good luck with your research! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quynh. I think ''Yahoo! Answers'' is an interesting site that I have participated in. One of the problems with ''Yahoo! Answers'' (which I do not find with other sites such as Wikipedia) is that the validity of the answers provided is based on the number of answers submitted (as well as the rating system which you described). I have participated in Yahoo Answers in the past and often receive 2-3 answers at the most, which doesn't make me feel confident that I am getting the right answer. I think a fascinating point of focus is the "competitive" element of the scoring. Do gaining points and achieving different levels encourage better answers or cause competitive respondents to provide less accurate answers for the mere aspiration of gaining points? Good luck with your project. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Christopher Mejo 
Prospectus title: Building a New Online Community in Drupal 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Final_project_prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:chrism|chrism]] 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Christopher, sorry if my question is trivial but what do you mean by saying that you will have to contemplate several non-democratic values to make sure your website runs smoothly? And also I’m curious if you’re creating this website to answer the questions of your project about freedom of expression and reputation of the website. Good luck with your website and final project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Christopher, I'm curious to hear more about how you plan to attract readers and community members to your site. What's the value proposition? Do people want financial and investment advice from their peers? Who is your target audience and what sites are they currently engaging with and how are they engaging with them? Developing your own site and attracting users in the next two months is quite an undertaking - maybe there's a way to explore the issues you raise in your prospectus by looking at existing forums for where people discuss finance? I can't say I go to this kind of site myself but [http://www.finance30.com/ Finance 3.0] came up during a Google search as did this article [http://www.accountingdegree.com/blog/2009/50-awesome-social-networks-for-finance-geeks/ 50 Awesome Social Networks for Finance Geeks]. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed @Aditkowsky, I'll be interested to see what approach you take towards building up site membership. You may want to find a more specific niche that you notice is going unfulfilled on some of the main financial websites. I'm also interested that you're intentionally using advertising from day 1- it'd be great if you could find some way to get feedback from site viewers on how that affects their feelings about the site as a whole. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your project sounds very challenging and will require a detailed understanding of programming which I assume you have. As I understand it, the niche of the site will be economics/investment. I would be interested in knowing whether governance techniques for other sites will be the same for an investment basics site. One can only assume that the nature of governance (and the personal information provided) will be different between a financial site and say a video game or online game site (perhaps not).--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Brendan Long 
Prospectus title: Question & Answer Website Services and the Impact of Social Media 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Final_Project_Prospectus_-_Long%2C_Brendan.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brendan, since you mention you will provide a timeline and historical content of the Q&A sites and social media, and also a comparison of them and impact of the social media on them, I would suggest your work to be more focused on the analysis of the information you find. This means that although the overview of Q&A is necessary for your work, we already know more or less the social media, and I like to read about your question of Q&A functions within these sites, which is a topic totally new, at least for me. Good luck, very interesting![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Hi Brendan,
Cool idea. I’m not on facebook, so I wasn’t aware that there was a separate section for answer seekers. I use dedicated Q & A sites quite a bit. The one’s that make me register before looking at them, I usually pass by. Mostly, I use sites dedicated to Android programming, other IT community sites, specific auto repair questions, and one legal questions site. On two occasions, I paid a small fee for “good” answers on JustAnswers.com.
The sites I have found to be credible and useful are; avvo (A V V O - looks like a W when they are close together).com for legal questions, JustAnswer.com (this is the site where I agreed to “donate” a token fee for a correct answer), forum.xda-developers.com for some of my Android questions, liliputing.com (again for Android), and Cyanogenmod.com (yep, again for Android stuff).
It’s been my experience that experts tend to collect in likeminded online communities. I’m not sure what social network sites offer, but I think that intrinsically technical question seekers might need to go outside of the general social network platform in search of community sites dedicated to the specific topic. It will be a really interesting study – I’m looking forward to seeing your results. Best of luck. [[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi Brendan, Julia Brav and Quynh Dang are also looking at aspects of Q&A sites - it might be fun to try to find a way to work with them. In terms of your prospectus, I'm most intrigued by how successful Q&A is on social networking sites. What are the benefits and challenges? And how much is success dependent on your personal ability to engage your friends/contacts/followers vs. a larger community's engagement with a dedicated Q&A site? [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems one like one major thing that the Q and A sites have going for them is that they've managed to entrench themselves in certain communities already; fans of certain types of video games know the best sites, engineers know the best sites for that, etc. It'll be interesting to see what you find with social media sites and how they are going to try and balance their broad appeal with an attempt to create very specifically useful Q and A sections. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So your main goal is to examine how social media can influence the popularity (and authenticity) of Q & A sites? I would imagine that social media can be viewed as a means for advertising or popularizing Q & A sites. Would your focus be on how users of a Q & A site may choose to popularize that site through their Facebook or twitter accounts? One interesting point may be to examine the behavior of users who choose to popularize Q & A sites through social media. Do they feel that a certain answer is significant that everyone should know? Is a certain type of answer or topic the reason why they would likely integrate social media? --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Hope Solomon 
Prospectus title: Communicating with Constituents through Twitter 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_2_Hope_Solomon.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Hope Solomon, it seems that architecture and norms used on twitter have favored the political leaders in their campaigns. I wonder if there’s any limitation to its usage for political purposes, and if so you include them in your project. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hope, this is a great topic and I look forward to following your research for the rest of the semester. It might be helpful to identify different kinds of twitter "engagement" and make an attempt at quantifying them. For example, how many @ replies are there vs. general status updates? Is there some way to evaluate the "quality" of the tweets? Do the politicians make use of hashtags and, if so, to what effect? It might also be interesting to note the number of followers at the start and end of the project. And finally, by the end of the project, do you have any best practices for politicians for how to engage their community and get (or at least seem like you're getting) things done? Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great idea- how will you deal with the fact that many politicians Twitter feeds are at least partially actually managed by a series of pr experts/interns who follow set instructions for the material they post? I obviously don't know if this is true for the specific ones you mentioned, but it would be an interesting extra layer where the format of the site actually creates a false sense of closeness for subscribers. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great topic!Is Twitter more a tool for the politicians to advertise themselves rather than an interactive tool between constituent and politician? Is there solid evidence that Twitter really has initiated change (constituent protest on Twitter leads to reforms by politician)? I look forward to reading your paper. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I can say from experience, Twitter has been the most beneficial platform to me. I have made invaluable connections, found work, and interacted with some interesting people. I've often thought about Twitter's community and communication guidelines. Why are they so effective? What drives the tweet traffic on Twitter? I concluded that it is powerful and effective because it is completely open. There are no walls to stop anyone from interacting or sharing information with anyone else. It is the first entirely open communication platform. I am writing my prospectus on StockTwits, which is an app similar to Twitter. We should talk if you would like to field an interesting discussion. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Yerzhan Temirbulatov 
Prospectus title: Endless war on piracy 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:YerzhanTemirbulatov_EndlessWarOnPiracy.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Yerzhan, I think your second question is the center of your investigation, because you can investigate what were the effects of the shutting down of Megaupload. As for the question of SOPA/PIPA and ACTA role in the online copyright piracy, I would say this would not be certainly defined in the near future, at least in the next weeks—just my opinion. Good luck!, interesting project.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yerzhan, I'm very interested in the discussion of Russian torrent sites, particularly since so much of the class discussion is geared toward the US. I'd love to see a comparison between a site like Megaupload and the leading Russian torrent sites, and I'd also love to learn more about emergence of Tribler and its potential impact on file sharing. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic certainly is relevant to the course discussion. I am not sure if it will be too challenging to analyze the effects of the megaupload closure since the arrests occurred not too long ago (maybe I'm underestimating the dynamic quality of the internet). Good luck with your work. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting extension of the discussions we've had in class, I'll be interested to see how good the statistics you can find are. Is this the sort of thing where the given statistics are totally trustworthy? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Tara Baechel 
Prospectus title: The Internet, Adoption and the Privacy of Minors 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Baechel_Assignment_2.pdf Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:TBaechel]] 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Tara, your proposal is very interesting and I’d like to know who was the actor that promoted this change you have noted in this website. In the second part you propose, I’d like to know what are the reasons of the people who adopt a child when they do not have the resources to support the adoption costs. Is there any kind of abuse they have detected and they decide to help these children? Good luck with your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tara, I think you raise really interesting questions about whether the release of private information online helps or hinders adoption agencies' marketing efforts. I might suggest that instead using fundraising websites set up by parents as a complement to your main research topic, you could look to forums/discussion boards that include potential and current adoptive parents. What can you learn about their preferences from monitoring those communities? What might adoption agencies learn that could affect the way they communicate with parents pursuing adoption? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is powerful. My brother adopted two children many years ago and he never had this wealth of information on perspective children. I think that moral issues may arise (as you mentioned) regarding the type and amount of information released concerning these children, both in the adoption process and many years later when these children are part of the internet public record. Hopefully you will be able to find more focus as you continue your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, and the point about this information coming back to haunt the children later in their life is a very strong one that hadn't occurred to me. Do you think that the lack of information, while better for the children, may actually deter potential parents to some degree? I know adoption is something that people generally are very committed to if they are considering it, but would a lack of information actually hinder the ability of some sites/groups to draw in possible adoptive parents? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tara, from your prospectus, your project seems very interesting but also very difficult. I have some knowledge even though limited of the minors world and legal issues. I worked in the DA’s Office Domestic Violence Unit and I personally encountered many problems regarding information and minors. Because of this, I am very eager to read your final project once it is completed. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Manuel Valerio 
Prospectus title: Internet, fame and speed to Market 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:MPValerio_Assignment-2_Internet_Fame.pdf] 
Comments: 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Manuel, I think indeed this phenomenon of being relatively unknown to an overnight sensation is very interesting. It reminds me the Youtube phenomenon, which you can also take a look at, in which a random video becomes famous and the producer receives a call with a great amount of money for advertisement. But I didn’t grasp the essence of the question you will work on, is it what influences this rapid change? Good luck!, interesting idea.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Manuel, in addition to the ideas you raise in your prospectus, I'd be interested in hear more about the specific role of an online community (or communities) in propelling a person or product to prominence. What quality of the community and what actions taken by the users contributed to the outcome? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manuel, I did not really get your research question. What answer are you planning to give? How do you plan to sue Lessig framework. I am unsure about the claim that it is really new and the role of internet. I will maybe also see the connection with other media such as tv shows. Best of luck!!!--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 15:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is interesting and I too have wondered how the internet has sped up fame for a particular star. You seem to be focusing on blogging, which may pose complications since there are many other online avenues that can contribute to the rise of a popular musician or actor. To separate blogs from youtube, review sites and music sites may be challenging. Are you focusing on the collective blogsphere of amateur individuals, or professional blogs written by well-known bloggers?--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One interesting aspect of this is whether the "fame" produced by an internet-fueled sudden rise to stardom is as permanent as fame that came through more traditional channels would be. Look at the Lana Del Rey pushback with her terrible performance on SNL; since then she has done much better on Letterman, but her album has been regarded critically as pretty average, and that sudden internet fame may end up disappearing as quickly as it came. Blogs are very focused in the moment, especially pop-culture ones. Is that really conducive to creating long-lasting success? I'm really looking forward to reading this one. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Marjolein Siegenthaler 
Prospectus name: Airbnb.com 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_2_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc 
Comments: [[User:MSS|MSS]] 22:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Marjolein, your project seems interesting, especially when regarding the vandalism question. When reading the case you presented, I remembered the several cases of vandalism that have taken place through Facebook. But thinking deeply, I think in the facebook cases it’s the user’s fault, because he was who agreed to have appointments with unknown people, and in the case of airbnb.com the user would have to prove that it was actually the website’s fault because of the information exchange limitation. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marjolein, I think looking at the rules and norms for airbnb is a great topic. You might consider looking at [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing.org] as a point of comparison since the culture explicitly values the connection between hosts and guests. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marjolein, I am personally interested in your subject because few days ago a friend of mine told me to put my vocational house on it. Regarding, your question, I will also check what kind of policy do airbnb put in place to refrain such behavior, like credit card number given to the police, check of the identity, etc? And how does this comply with the protection of privacy? I like the idea of Adi to compare policy with other similar websites. Best of luck.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great research questions, this seems like a nightmare of potential legal problems that could be tied up across different national systems. What if they went back to their country before you realized they damaged your home? How do you even get at them? But at the same time, it seems like the site would be wise to totally protect itself from any liability, and function only as an intermediary, with no guarantee. If they could be found responsible for damages they'd be doomed, and very open to possible scamming too. Neat project. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marjolein,
I thought I'd send you a link to coverage on AirBNB from Gawker (http://gawker.com/airbnb/), stemming from the singular incident described in your prospectus. These reports have an overwhelming negative (and arguably libelous) slant (but that's Gawker for you). I hope that these might be useful in your investigation.[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marjolein, Your topic certainly touches upon some general legal arguments that may apply to any media outlet in which there is a transaction of some sort. If you look at newspapers that have “want ads” and postings, an argument could be made that the newspaper is in some way liable since there was a payment for the want ad to be published. Your questions on how the site regulates the type of information provided, and whether that regulation diminishes or increases the chances that arrangements not working out, should lead to interesting avenues of thought. I would consider examining policies on two different fronts; how the regulation of information attracts users, and how the regulation of information increases the likelihood of transactions working out.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In terms of community devlopment, AirBnb is an interesting case. Like the people mentioned above, a single incident where a AirBnb user trashes another AirBnb user's apartment can break the entire community. What is worth looking into here is the fragility behind the AirBnb community. In addition, what are the steps AirBnb is taking to support that fragility? I'm also curious to hear what your opinion is on AirBnb and hotels. Would you rather use AirBnb or a hotel? Why? What is AirBnb doing with its community and users that is worse or better than a hotel? [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Gregorian Hawke 
Prospectus name: twentymine.com 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Talk_to_Strangers_v1.0.odt 
Comments: 

Hi Gregorian, wow your case really surprised me, I think you probably had been for a while in this community to receive this computer parts, isn’t it? As for your proposal, I wonder how will you measure the level of trust between members of a community. I’m also interested in your results of which environment is more likely to have trust among its members, because it seems that in the videogame environment the level of trust is high after some time. Good luck, very interesting proposal![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gregorian, I love your Minecraft story and I think it would be very interesting to focus in on this community. Maybe you could look specifically at your own relationship with the members of your sub-community and the ways in which you built trust through gaming together. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregor, Your idea and the way you connect the “small talk” and the trust that can come up from it is interesting. Some features of the some community seem to increase the trust between the users. I will be very interested in the result of your study. And if, except yourself, other users have similar experiences to share. I never did! Good luck
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Gregorian, I think the idea of looking at the internet as a forum for non-monetary, trust-based material exchanges is a good one. It would be great if there was one community you could look at where those exchanges have succeeded and failed, or where there are formal or informal criteria for when a level of trust has been established to allow a transaction to take place. [[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 19:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great anecdote from Minecraft! You may want to come up with a very simple survey to measure "trust," ie. a number scale from 1 to 10 and they rate how much they would trust a stranger in real life, in Minecraft, on a gaming forum, etc. Might help you to quantify answers a little better. I know this will be a fun one to read! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the psychological/behavioral aspect of your topic. I think that internet users in online communities may develop a sense of trust in much the same way that all of us do in our everyday lives; we develop trust by interacting with someone continuously. However I think that trust in today’s digital age is weighed against the potential misuses of that trust (i.e. fraud, identity theft). Of course trust is also built on common interests and can be augmented by exchanging advice that leads to a more rewarding product or discussion. Your topic is a bit broad but I think you can find some interesting conclusions about trust and how the internet has shaped that trust.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Mike Brant 
Prospectus Title: Children for Peace/Youth for Peace Online Community 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Children_for_Peace-Youth_for_Peace_Online_Community_-Mike_Brant.doc 
[[User:Mike|Mike]] 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Mike, congrats, more than a project for our class you’re developing a project to promote peace in the world. I think the main question you’re trying to answer is how the other organizations have reached the international spectrum, so once you have understood how they did it, you can start implementing the results in your own project. Good luck with this project!, and hope you can take to the international step.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, you raise some interesting points in your prospectus. I wonder about some of the challenges of using an online platform for engagement with kids (at least in the US, there are [http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm lots of rules] governing communications to children under the age of 13) and about how you might connect with kids/youth who have limited or no access to the Internet. Perhaps your research will help address some of those issues. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike, if I have well understood your objective is to create a community of children willing peace and acting in different way for it. Your research question is about the online norms to regulate this community? As a consequence, I would rather stick on this and see the censorship issues and also investigate on how to deal with kids rather than go to see the success of peace teaching in the world which is a totally different and hard subject? Best of luck!! By the way, no website yet about this project?--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike, if there is another website you know of that is focused on fostering international dialogue amongst youth, you might want to just focus on that one community? [[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 19:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that a site that children could actually access and participate in would need to have stronger regulation than just "golden rule" and the basic Wikipedia sort of social contract, as successful as it has been. This may be my bit more pessimistic view of human nature online, but I think that it is hard to market a site related to youth and children if they can't participate much on it, and hard to market a site children can participate in without pretty clear and strong protections for them... I'll be interested to see what you conclude. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

While I consider your goal of a peace-oriented website to be a valiant effort, I am not sure if you can regulate “negative” material that almost certainly will abound if users are left to contribute to the materials, which in turn could lead to political problems. I am just not sure how you could regulate the recognition of problems if the goal of the website is to find a peaceful solution to those problems (perhaps it is just the political scientist in me). UNCESCO, is, if I’m not mistaken, a United Nations organization, and therefore likely works with the various other UN groups on their specific goals. You are dealing with an interesting political issue as it relates to online forums and good luck with your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: David Taber 
Prospectus: Coffee Shop vs. Grocery Store: Where and how local news is discussed on the web
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:David_Taber_prospectus_E-120.odt] 
Comments 
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 
I could have sworn I uploaded this on Tuesday, but it appears I forgot to hit submit. Sorry! 

Hi David, I think your topic is very interesting in the sense that this is a unique environment for local participation, ulike the Globe. By the way, why do you prefer “local” instead of “hyperlocal,” I personally like more hyperlocal because it gives a far more local sentiment than the Globe, which apparently is local but it covers foreign affairs. I think your results on the structure comparison will be very interesting. Good luck with your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi David, I really like your concept and I think it also touches on the issue of fair use we read about this week. It might also be interesting to note how much of the original article is reposted and how much additional commentary Universal Hub makes on the article. I've found that commentors can often be negligent when it comes to reading the original source so you might want to take that into consideration when evaluating the differences in comments. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear David, I thing you have found there a real way to compare 2 comparable materials and will have great and maybe unexpected results. What will be interesting is if you find comments from a common commentator to see the difference in the speech depending on the website. I would also link your comparison to the difference in the tons adopted by both websites that can influence the content of the comments left. Best of luck!
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What a great way to be able to study the effect of the form information is presented in, nice idea. My instinct is that certain people will heavily trust one or the other more, even if the same info is given in both. I'm also interested in how certain info (say a very serious and depressing story) would be altered in order to fit into both? How does that work, if a particular story doesn't really feel natural to appear on the Hub site? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 

 
Name: Carl Fleming 
Prospectus Title: Khan Academy 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fleming_Assignment_2.doc 
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments 

Hi Carl, I find your topic very interesting in part because I’m also interested in distance education. I’m working on the Open University case, but I’m anxious about your results of the Khan’s Academy. Sab is also working on this topic, but she has four topics: Khan’s Academy, MITx, London School of Economics, and Harvard Distance Education. Since we already know how the paying distance education works, I’m interested in your topic because it is totally free and it will probably be a competition in the education field in the near future. Good luck, very interesting topic![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am very amazed to discover your prospectus as it is very similar to mine. Regarding your first question I am wondering if the success of the Academy lies on the architecture, your answer will be very interesting to me, or if it lies on the way Kahn taught the subject. My feeling is that the second option is the right one. As for your second question, this article and especially the comments associated to it can help you to get some answer. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_khan/all/1
As for me, Kahn Academy is a wonderful free supplement to traditional offline education but does not reach the objective targeted. This is, as Gates says, a first step to the Revolution.
I like your research questions but I am losing some logical links with the methodology used. Why not focusing on the use of the Academy in the traditional education space in California, and check the result of the evaluation, if any, on “impoverished” students.
Same for “Critique of the Academy”, I do not see the link. I would rather focus on the constructivism, the interactivity and the quality of the teaching (cf. the article).
 --[[User:Sab|Sab]] 13:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question, I'm glad so many people are focusing on education from a variety of different angles. I feel like some very relevant conclusions could be drawn from compiling the 5 or so different reports that look at the intersections of internet and education. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carl,
I was really excited to see that you're focusing on Khan Academy (I learned about it only recently, and I've since become semi-addicted to doing practice questions). I think a comparative study of the Academy's architecture vs. that of traditional education methods could yield very interesting results. I'd also be curious to hear your thoughts on user-coaches (that is, how any user can theoretically provide coaching in addition to Sal Khan's coaching videos), and how you think that adds or detracts (or both) from the Academy's overarching mission.[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-03-06T00:16:46Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 21. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments!'''

===Submissions===
 
Name: Stefan Cheplick 
Prospectus: Social Finance and StockTwits
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Social_Finance_Internet_and_Society.doc] 
Prospectus 2: Bitcoins (in development. for fun.)
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:InternetandSociety_Bitcoins_SJC.doc] 
Comments: 

Name: Sab 
Prospectus:
Free Online High-Quality Education: The Next Revolution on Internet?[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Sab_Assignment_2.doc_-_Copie.doc] 
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 13:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 

Hi Sab, I like your topic a lot because my project has to do also with distance education online. I’m working on the Open University case. It seems that you have a specific question that is related to the emergence of high-quality student-centric education system as a true public good, and I would say your question is good narrowed, but would be better if you work in just one of the cases of the four you mentioned—Sal Khan’s project, MITx, Harvard, and the London School of Economics. I’d like to know more about Khan’s project since we already know how the online paid degrees are in Harvard. Very interesting, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sabrina, I find your topic very interesting! I am curious to find out how the lack of interaction between students and teachers affect the quality of online versus offline education, and how you are going to measure it? Or if you are interested in exploring how the lack of students and teachers interaction affect the quality of education, I suggest comparing a community with interaction to one without. Best, Quynh. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Hello, Thanks for your comments. Intercations can be measured when you have forumn, lie lectures or section, wiki. Success is measurable by the rate of drop out, the rate of success, ect. Thanks again for helping me to be more precised. --[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Make sure to narrow your thesis to something you can study and argue in a quantifiable way, but this sounds like an interesting concept. How much will you be using our specific class as a source? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Our class is wonderful example of tools put in place to create interactivity between students and teachers. The quantitative part will be more an observation of the students community. When looking of forum, you can draw the best model that students are looking for. Therefore, I will try to find a way to quantify the criteria that students are looking for in an online education system.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sab. You picked a wonderful topic. I completed most of my undergraduate degree through distance education, and had experienced DL at various institutions and levels. I am glad to see someone is interested in the rich opportunities DL offers.

This prospectus covers a lot of topics. With the 10-page limit you may want to narrow down to one or two. I suggest

A. the first thing you could do is to define your subject – free online education websites (e.g. MIT OpenCourseWare, Ted Talk, etc) or DL facilitated by educational institutions (e.g. Harvard Extension School, University of London International Programmes, etc), as both serve different purposes and are operated differently.

B. Out of all the areas you wish to explore, I personally would love to read about “the economic model of free online education websites” as well as “the construction of the teacher and student interactive community”. I think the quality of education and professionalism of teachers are really institution-dependent. HES here is a leader in providing quality education and best teachers because the school obviously would not like to mess up the Harvard name *grin*. But I can imagine certain institutions may not stick to the same ideal. So I personally do not find this issue worthy of much ponderance.

As for copyright of the lectures, I think it’s an interesting issue as well. I’ve once asked Professor Allan Ryan, Harvard’s IP lawyer and the instructor of HES’ IP and Media Law courses, whether obtaining the copyright of the material we use in the DE courses is an issue. He replied that luckily , the US has a law that says using copyrighted material for educational purposes is considered fair use. So we are covered in most aspects. The relevant laws are 1) Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002, and 2) amendment to the US Copyright Law section 110(2). Hope this information helps! Yep, We have seen that in class. I wwas also suprised by the fair use for non profit education prurposes.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. In fact, I plan just to observe the student community and try to make a matricial scheme that let emerge a model as intercativity, professionnalism of the teacher, free degree, non degree, tradename, etc. Then, I will try to see the issues that such model rise like copyright, economic model--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sabrina, your project seems very interesting and I have always thought about education, degrees and online programs. I personally think that if a person wants an education he or she can do that either by means of a computer or by going to a library. On the other hand we must consider today’s job market and the requirements (degrees) to meet in order to obtain a good job. I am curious to read your findings and I would like to wish you good luck on your paper. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you so much--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great idea for a prospectus. Here are two of my immediate thoughts: I've often wondered if Khan Academy, for example, will someday be able to give out diplomas that employers respect? Since the release of Khan Academy I've noticed several other websites try to mimic it. Now Youtube is flooding with educational videos online(Google search results too). So, how will users of the Internet empower the best non-profit, online, community education platforms? [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting topic and, to a degree, it somewhat overlaps with my proposed topic to study Khan Academy. As for comments, I would just echo what some others have already mentioned: try to limit the scope of your thesis. There is a lot of material to cover, and we only have so many pages. I am struggling with this myself.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sab - interesting topic. I'd second (or third) the others in narrowing your thesis. DL is a huge topic. Looking forward to reading your conclusions! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--[[User:YHHsiao|YHHsiao]] 10:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: You-Hwa Hsiao 
Prospectus:
ACTA and the protests – a reaction to the governmental control extending into the cyber world[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Hsiao_assignment2.pdf] 
Comments: 
Hi You-Hwa, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) sounds like a very interesting topic. I'm curious to hear more about how you plan to monitor the anti-ACTA community while you explore the impact of ACTA on online behavior. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Hi You-Hwa Hsiao, I like the theme you propose and think it is narrowed to the ACTA case. You mention the question of how the ACTA galvanizes the Internet community, and that you want to follow the rest of the semester the development of this event. In this way, I would suggest your work to be more in an analytical sense than informative, developing interesting discussions and analysis with the information you will gather. Interesting topic, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I like your prospectus and your topic is relevant. In particular, I find it interesting that hacking and cyberattacks are viewed as a sign of protest and that this protest element has assumed nontraditional forms. I think that you are covering a lot of ground with your thesis and you may want to focus on a particular dimension of ACTA/response to ACTA.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I really like how you're exploring some issues of online vs. physical life in your topic. I'm interested to see not just how your project develops but how your subject develops between now and the end of the course; it's such a current and evolving thing that you may get to study some really great major events related to it even in such a short span of time! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your topic is very relevant and I look forward to reading you paper. I am very curious to learn about these common (are they?) norms and values of the people in the virtual world vs those in the physical world and what it is exactly that they are protesting against [[User:MSS|MSS]] 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I think your topic is very much related to the course and I will suggest the Lessig framework. I will also be interested in profiling the internet users that protest on and offline. Good luck!--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 18:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi You-Hwa, you raised many interesting questions in your prospectus. I am interested in finding out how the ACTA impact online behaviors, specifically, what are they trying to protect with the opposition? [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 10:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You-Hwa, I appreciate your prospectus. It is indeed interesting in how some hacker groups are protesting by attacking websites. I think the term for these people is Hacktivists? Not sure. In regards to your paper, I am incredibly interested in how the hacker groups develop their Hacktivsim. What is their management structure? Where do they organize? How does someone become a member? [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool topic. I too am very intrigued by the whole community of hacker groups that protest by attacking websites. My only comment is that I had a difficult time truly understanding what you will be measuring when you speak of online life and virtual life. It would seem like each would have infinite things to measure, and it might be beneficial to define a short list so that the universe of things measured is well defined.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very relevant topic. Seems like you will have a lot of research. How exactly do you intend to study or measure this? Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 10:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Harvard212 
Prospectus: Being Nice and Free Speech on the Internet[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Harvard212_Assignment2.pdf] 
[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 16:34 EST, 21 February 2012 
Comments: 

Hi Harvard212, I think you would have to apply what Rob said in class: cut your project in half, then in half, and whatever is left in third. This is not to say your topic is not interesting, I think it is, but—in my opinion—the question is very broad, and I would suggest to you to choose one part of being “nice” on the Internet, for example what kind of Etiquette can you find in a specific community (like we already analyzed in the Wikipedia’s case), or in a specific bloggers’ web page. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi @Harvard212, I'd love to hear more about the community you plan to study. It sounds like you've lined up a good framework for starting your review and it's now a matter of narrowing down the scope. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

Agreed, this is certainly an interesting concept (what does "nice" mean? what are its implications? is it universal?) and I'll be interested to see how you narrow it down to a controlled topic for study. Be careful not to give yourself too much; tons of background research is great but its real value often comes when you can focus it on something very specific [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sofia, I like your project very much but I too feel that it might be a bit too extensive. My suggestion would be to focus more on a single or few specific parts and then it will definitely be a great paper. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your project is ambitious and deals with philosophical/sociological questions regarding the expansive internet and how norms can benefit the entire community. While I am not sure if a general set of norms can be established with millions of users from across the world with their own agendas and online needs, obviously Wikipedia would be a good example of norms being established and these norms are established within the websites themselves. Are you focusing more on norms or norms "as set by law"? How do norms of one website vary with another similar website based on the needs of the consumer? Good start.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. Very curious to see if you are able to find an universal meaning of "nice". I do hope you have found someone to work in a group with, as this seems like a very extensive topic and corresponding reasearch. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Harvard212, Interesting topic, but to narrow it down, I suggest choosing an online community, such as Wikipedia, and see how the "be nice" rule plays out. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 11:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would just reiterate what certain others have pointed out above: (i) finding a definition of "nice" may be difficult and (ii) you may benefit from tightening the scope of your work. Otherwise, I think it looks like an outstanding area for research.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You certainly picked an interesting thesis! Do you plan to focus on wikipedia only, or several online communities? May be helpful to make a comparison of the social norms on various platforms. Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: BSK342 
Prospectus: Community, Architecture, and Regulation in the Something Awful Forum Space
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Bsk342assignment2.pdf] 
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi BSK342, I really like your topic because part of the daily junk I find on the Internet comes from them. I know there are some very interesting forums and they have reliable information, but most of the time the information is just incomplete or not worthy to read. I only wonder how are you going to follow how members of the community engage in other spaces, because I think is quite difficult. Very interesting, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool topic. I'm particularly interested in what you observe/learn about people's willingness to pay for additional services. So often websites/applications/businesses struggle with how to monetize a good idea - perhaps your research will shed some light on this for managers of online communities. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I think your project sounds interesting and you are asking many questions that applies to all types of forums and online social behavior. Although I am not familiar with the Something Awful forums, I agree with Aditkowsky that it is interesting that the site does charge a subscription fee to post comments. This could be an interesting point of departure. Is the quality of the content stronger if people are paying for access? Does the subscription fee filter out those who may not be as serious about the forum? Good work.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I definitely remember SA as a site I visited a lot when I was younger, I'm really looking forward to hearing what it has evolved into during the past years! The focus on how sites manage to monetize themselves is a very good one, and one that always seems to be such a make or break moment. I feel like SA is a place that tends to cater towards younger and more internet savvy viewers/members... how does that affect the process of attempting to gain profit off of it? Are they more likely to pay to support something they care about, or are they less likely than an older person with less internet experience who is used to paying for everything? Have fun! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. There are many of these sites which have proliferated content across the WWW. Although, I see it in trends. Goregallery was one of these sites, then it was worth1000, something awful, and so on. I think that users get a laugh out of it. It used to be emails, then it was myspace, facebook, and so on and so forth. Perhaps there is something more human in needing to share these laughs based in norms?
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 03:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also particularly interested on the monetary part of your research questions. Will quality be better when paid for? Will people feel even more connected to the forum when they pay for it (us vs them?) Would it be the same if they made it free or the amount to be paid at the discretion of the user (the article of Chris Anderson,"the Long Tail" see class readings for February 14, 2012 might be useful.[[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi BSK342, I think you made an interesting proposal. I am interested in finding out why people would pay for this forum. Perhaps it is the "privilege" people buy for $9.99? I think your approach of observing how the policies and guidelines play out in practice is good. I suggest that you pick another forum (one without a privilege fee) to compare it with. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am very interested in your topic, but struggled with two items: valuation and monetization. It was unclear to me how you might value the content in order to set the price. It was then unclear to me how that content may be monetized. I think it may just have been because it is such a short space to cover all these details. Good luck with the project.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how you will be able to determine the motivation behind paying for the ability to post in the forums? Also think your results will be very interesting! I agree with Qdang about making a comparison. Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Blake Geno 
Prospectus: Anonymity, Privacy and Evolving Tools
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Blakegeno_prospectus.odt] 
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 
Hi Blake, in thinking about your project, it might be interesting to select a few sites using [http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/108/ facebook connect] and evaluate how this option can impact user privacy and anonymity. It seems like this could sync up with the themes you discuss in your prospectus while also narrowing the scope. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Hi Blake Geno, when you say you intend to do: “I., II., III.” I would say only one of those items should be your topic. All three of them are very interesting and surely you would find substantial information. For example, I’ve read that Facebook do not really respect anonymity entirely, that when you decide to close your page they keep the information, and also their policies change very often, and this affect the users. Do we really have privacy and anonymity in Facebook? Good luck, interesting proposals.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Blake. Your project does pose some significant questions as to the types of data that sites like Facebook collect and what that information is used for. You can define the goal of collecting information into two categories; positive (improving the user experience) and negative (selling the information for marketing purposes). Great research question. Hopefully you will be able to focus on more specific dimension of this important.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in how exactly you are going to go about this. It could be really neat to create a whole persona with the relevant info that a website wants and then try and link it across a large number of sites that demand a log in/personal info/etc. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blake, Very interesting topic! Facebook was recently the focus of CNBC 60 min., and lights were shed on the topics you are discussing in our paper, especially the targeted adversising. In the show, I remember someone saying that FB advertising was an entirely different ballgame, as people on Facebook are not travelling from A to B but like to stay on the FB page and thus "want" to be distracted by advertising, whereas advertising in a traditional way aims on how to advertise for people who are going from one website to another and are not looking for distraction. I think that this would be very intersting for your project. If you google Facebook, CNBC and 60 min, you will probably find the show. Also, this article I just read on Forbes by Kashmir Hill, called "Facebook user unwittingly becomes sex lube pitchman thanks to sponsored stories", dated Feb 28, 2012, may interest you. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Blake, your prospectus is thought-provoking and as a Facebook user I would be very interested in your findings. I do however feel that it could get a bit complicated for what concerns the appropriate research but keep up with the good work. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi BlakeGeno, your prospectus contains many interesting and ambitious questions. As a suggestion, you can narrow it down by asking what effect does user identification have on the end user? Does the requirement of user identification prevent spamming and abusive comments? I am interested in finding out how you are going to answer this. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 12:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Timely topic. Given the recent news on Facebook and Google and their collection of data, this is sure to be a rapidly growing area of research. If you haven't already considered it, I would be interested in learning about data collection by an entity like Facebook or Google and the relationship with tethered devices. How far does this information gathering extend without our even knowing it?
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blake - sounds like you have your work cut out for you. you may want to narrow it down to only a few sites. will you study Google+ and Google's new privacy policy? [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Abby Bergman 
Prospectus Title: Pinterest: Visually Arrested 
Link to Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:ABergman_Prospectus.pdf] 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 Comments: 

Hi Abby, I think your proposal is very interesting, especially because it is addressing a topic we have covered in the course: the Fair Use in Copyright. I would say your results will be useful for this course because they promise to be a good example of what it is Fair Use. Good luck! great choice.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abby, I applaud you for finding something meaty to explore with Pinterest. I'm curious as to how you will monitor instances of reported infringement on the site. Perhaps you could figure out which companies complain the most and then intentionally post their images so you can experience Pinterest's process for addressing potential infringement firsthand? (Maybe run that by one of the lawyers in class first....) Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I think you raise some important questions in regards to copyright laws and Fair Use. Your questions are relevant and you have a good thesis question. I checked out pinterest.com for the first time now and I think the Fair Use argument is validated. Good job with the prospectus!
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a really well thought out project; you know exactly the frame you want to look at this through and I think you'll come up with some very relevant conclusions. Studying a site that is still on its way up will definitely give you a chance to keep this going and check your theories against what happens with Pinterest over the next year or two! Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Your topic, questions and overall frame are very clear. Very curious about the outcome, I would think the hosting aspect is the sting. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abby, recently Pinterest is popping up everywhere. I think you have a good focus by exploring the possibility for copyright infringement. Your methodology, comparing Pinterest and Google Images, and investigating Pinterest's policy on using copyrighted material and the court's opinion in Perfect 10 vs Google case, is well planned out . Good job on your proposal! [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting line of research on a site that is clearly extremely hot right now. I am impressed with your level of focus this early on in the process (review of cases, case study comparisons). Good luck with this project.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jennifer Lopez 
Prospectus title: The New Era of Online Activism 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_2.pdf Final Project Prospectus] [[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments:

Hi Jennifer, I like your proposal of analyzing online activism sites like change.org, purpose.com, avaaz.org, although I think you should choose one of these for your project. I also think the effectiveness of online activism has been proven, because we have seen cases like the Arab Spring, the Occupy Wall Street and the Bank of America’s decision to rescind it’s proposal, but what I like of your project is that you will explain how they were effective and how the organizations began. Very interesting, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jennifer, I'm very much looking forward to seeing your video interviews once they come together. In additional to the perspectives of founders, I'm also interested to hear more from the participants in the campaigns you study. Perhaps you could reach out to community members as well. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Interviews is a neat way to go about this project and this is an issue that always bothers me; just how much does power or activism on the internet translate to real impacts on people's lives? Be careful to research without being biased though; as much as I generally agree with you that online activism is real-world effective, there may be some instances where it wasn't, and that could be just as interesting! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is very relevant with the current affairs of United States and the world. I think it is safe to conclude that online protest movements are making a serious impact on political and social issues. As you continue your research, I would focus on how online protest movements are effective. I think your reference to Benkler's work is a good step in that direction. I think you should also explore the notion of empowerment and whether online protest sites may foster personal empowerment in the same and different ways as more traditional protest movements. What mechanisms were the same and different with the SOPA, Susan Komen and Bank of America online movements?
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Looking forward to see the video's! I second the idea of Aditkowsky with regard to the views of actual participants and also if these differ from the views of the founders. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting line of research and something that I believe is highly relevant to the real world. I would be interested in learning about what has led to the success of certain online movements and what has led to the failure of others. If you were able to boil down a set of common characteristics to successful movements, that would be impressive.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it may be a good idea to also interview participants so that you can hear their perspective on participating as well as feeling like they are working towards effecting change. Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 23:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jennifer, interviewing Jeremy Heimans and creating video clips is an exciting approach to gather your data. I also like your idea of doing case studies, but perhaps just picking one from one site? [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Just Johnny 
Prospectus: Assignmnt 2
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Johnny_Assignment2.doc The Social Network] 
Comments: A social network will be constructed for the course. Feel free to contact, as this may be a possible group project. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Just Johnny, although you mention social networks as your primary study for the final project, you address code, architecture, human behavior, interaction, norms inside it. I couldn’t grasp what was the main question you proposed, is it about the architecture of the social networks? If so, what is the discussion you’re presenting? Good luck on narrowing.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi @Just Johnny, I'm intrigued by your idea for creating a social network. You write that "code will be the law which dictates behavior within the site". I'd love to hear more about the underlying concept and specific vision for the site and how you plan to restrict choice and behavior through code. Also, what is the appeal of your site vs. the numerous other social networking sites and forums available to users? What is your value proposition? Looking forward to seeing how your site evolves over the rest of the semester. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 
You certainly are undertaking an ambitious project and I think your conclusions can be fascinating. I agree with a few points/questions made by Aditkowsky. From what I gather, you would like to create a Wikipedia-esque social network in which the content/services are generated by the users in a dynamic environment. You also mentioned that a screening process may be required to preserve the integrity of the site. Is this site intended to be a study or actually lead to a practical site that people would want to join? If so, I would imagine that some core service or services may need to be created to attract and motivate users to contribute to the site (i.e. Wikipedia and information). Good luck on this very ambitious concept.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As the others have mentioned, wow! Very difficult and ambitious project, I'll definitely be following it closely. As Jimmyh mentioned, are you shooting for a broader appeal or do you think you will need to tweak your concept to focus heavily on one area in order to carve out a niche for yourself? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Very ambitious and interesting indeed! It is however not really clear to me what it is what your aiming for directly, as the focus seems pretty broad. Very curious to see how this project will turn out. Good luck with narrowing it down.
[[User:MSS|MSS]] 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My comments are similiar to those above: first, very impresseive. Second, I had a tough time understanding the specific focus of the project. I think it sounds very interesting and I look forward to seeing how it all comes together.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You've laid out a monster of a project! Sounds fascinating. I'm also not sure what your focus/thesis is? Perhaps clarifying or narrowing your focus would be helpful. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 23:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Fabian Celis J 
Prospectus title: The Role of the Internet in Distance Education: The Open University Case 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fabian_Celis_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Hi Fabian, studying distance learning in the Internet age seems like a great topic - and very appropriate - for this class. One aspect that I'd like to hear more about is the creation of a classroom community despite geography. You might even consider using our class as a test case. For example, I attend class in person but for the past two weeks, I've been using Adobe Connect to participate in the robust discussion that's happening among students who are primarily not in the classroom. In a hybrid class like ours, how do you break down the wall that separates "distance" and "in-person" students to create a more cohesive community? What architecture, systems, and culture do you need to make it work? [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I know you are attending this class (whether online or in person) but is there a chance you could also take the time to really dig into OU? It would be interesting to see the different ways people that use it view it as a resource; clearly everyone does not approach it with the same background, goals, or skills [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Distance education is a great aspect of how the internet has changed how we learn as individuals. I took my first live online course last semester using a program called Elluminate and I would check out how these types of interfaces can change the entire process of how classes (particularly discussion-based classes) are taught and how students can interact with other individuals from across the whole country and the entire world. A comparison of how unique methodologies specific to online education improves the entire classroom experience when compared to traditional in-classroom methods would be a good approach. Great subject and good luck with your work.

It appears you and Sab have similar topics. They both touch the distance education aspect. You should look at the two comments I've left Sab for additional feedback. I also have my cents to chime in regards to your paper. My first thought about open universities was to think of open communities on the Internet. So, wikipedia comes to mind. It would be interesting if there are any similarities or parallels in the development of an open university and an open encyclopedia. For one, both need dedicated users who are willing to operate, and care for their open platform. So my main suggestion here is to look at other open communities for similarities, and differences. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Great topic, very current. I agree with Jimmyh that a comparison to traditional class room education would be very interesting. Looking forward to see how this turns out. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fabian, it looks like we are studying similiar concepts. I am analyzing Khan Academy and its potential uses in developing nations for education. I would be interesting in sharing ideas as we continue with our research. Let me know if you would be interested.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: André Pase and Priscila Lollo 
Prospectus title: When two worlds collide, digital TV and online video in an age of transformation 
Research Focus: online video x tv 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assigment2_andrepase_priscilalollo.pdf Assignment 2] 
[[User:Andrepase|Andrepase]] 20:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi André and Priscila, is this the question you’re proposing: can the laws for the traditional medium change the development of new one? and are you going to work on this question through the Brazilian case?[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi André and Priscilla, I'm looking forward to learning more about how the Brazilian government and Brazilian companies and users are adapting to the changes in video delivery systems. I'm curious to hear more about the framework you plan to use for exploring the topic and I was also wondering if there is a specific community that you plan to follow. Since much of the class' focus seems to be on US and European examples, I think the Brazilian focus will be very interesting. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Agreed with Alexis, having this focus outside of the general scope of the class will be a great resource for all of us as far as a fresh perspective and (probably) some interesting takes on the same issues that we haven't considered! I'll be curious to see how the flow of information and law and etc. go back and forth in Brazil and this Brazilian online space. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am really fond of your dual country approach too! Maybe for a community you can use You Tube users vs a Brazilian equivalent (if any)? [[User:MSS|MSS]] 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic certainly has wide applications to how we view television in the modern age and legal discussions will certainly abound as a result. While I sense that you are examining the laws and market dynamics of the Brazilian model, I think you may want to hone in on a particular aspect of law as it relates to online television. Does a particular legal or governing aspect of the Brazilian model properly address piracy? How does the market shape the governance of online television? --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. A lot of media experts are trying to make sense of the convergence between digital TV and online video. Though really no one knows where it is headed. I personally recommend you look at some blog posts from Albert Wegner, a venture capitalist for Union Square Ventures. He thinks that television advertisements will get crushed almost exactly the same way print advertisements have suffered. Another thing I would consider looking into is the community building and social networking aspect behind digital video. For example, YouTube and Vimeo have rich interfaces where users can create their own television network, interact with their audience in real-time, and seamlessly collaborate with other users like them. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I love the comparative aspect of the proposal. I am very interested in learning how Brazil's legal structure might enable or limit the use of online video, especially realtive to US regulations.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Prospectus title: [http://pinterest.com/ Pinterest] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-BerkmanAssignment2-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Hi Alexis, I saw the Pinterest page and found it very interesting! You pose some very interesting topics in your proposal: the role of women in…?, “off-brand” style of Pinterest, and Pinterest’s norms, but I encourage you to choose one of them because for me still wasn’t clear which is your main question. Good luck with your project.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexis,
I would like to offer two sources which may be useful to supplement your research. The first, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), are a list of 8 goals adopted by the United Nations in an effort to eradicate poverty by the year 2015. Several of the goals involve online access for poor countries, and one goal specifically addresses gender equality. [http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals Millennium Goals Main Site] And the second source, [http://www.tigweb.org Taking IT Global], is rich in content and will provide a wealth of information and resource material. Good luck with your project, it looks interesting and informative.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

@Louiscelli Thanks so much! I will check these out. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

That's fascinating that 80% of Pinterest users are women; do you think that this gender ratio will become more balanced as pinterest gains public fame/acceptance? I'd love to see how far you can push "off brand" uses of the site since I am always very interested in the (often incredibly clever or useful) ways in which sites end up providing something totally outside their original concept. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexis, great topic! As for sites for marginalized communities by and for (mostly) women, maybe "gardenmoms" is also an interesting community to explore. It is a parenting resource website, where parents (mostly moms) ask questions to one another and exchange information. I am a member myself and think it may be right up your alley. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 03:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest does sound powerful from my limited familiarity with the website and I think your approach toward examining social norms should lead to interesting conclusions.What social norms you are focusing on? You mentioned the discrepancies between males and females in internet usage. Is this a particular norm that you will be focusing on? What feature are you examining in the "community versus collection of individuals" norm? Sounds like an interesting topic and good luck!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Alexis, sounds like a great project and already from your prospectus I have learned things that I wasn’t aware of. I agree with Louis on his suggestion of looking at the UN and their info. Good luck on your project! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is great that you are exploring Pinterest. It has gotten a ton of media publicity over the last few weeks. It is incredible that 80% of its users are female without ever openly saying it is a site for one gender or the other. What does this say about the community around Pinterest? The design, aesthetics, and layout? I ask myself if there will someday be the "Pinterest model" where a female specific website should look and function a certain way. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent topic and I would love to learn more about it as it relates closely to my work. I work with the MDGs and helping traditionally excluded populations (women and the poor) reach those goals. If you look into the literature on adolescent girls, secondary education and economic growth, you might find some interesting information on how this could be applied.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: James Harris 
Prospectus title: The Internet and “Bridging the Gap” in Politics 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_Assignment_2.doc Prospectus] 
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi James, I think your work will be unique because you’re addressing the internet in the political field. I personally suggest to dismiss some parts of your proposal and focus on the question you’re proposing of how social media does create the empowerment and populist energy, and you can do it with the good example of the former Vermong Governor. Through this example you can answer the questions you propose of the quick spread of information, the strategies of campains, and the flexibility of politicians due to this phenomenon. Good luck, very interesting field![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi James,
I love the concept, I’m just a little fuzzy on the thesis. Is the main focus going to concentrate on the elected-official/constituent relationship, or the paradigm shift of political campaign support? [[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi James, this is a great topic not only because of the timing but also because online campaigning and fundraising have had four years to evolve since the Dean and Obama campaigns in 2007/2008. One aspect you might decide to hone in on is the relationship of politicians to their constituents on their social networking sites. For example, Sarah Palin has been known to ban commenters who disagree with her viewpoint and Anthony Weiner used twitter to send provocative messages to his followers. Those are two high-profile ways of engaging or disengaging with followers but it might be interesting to look at a politician or two who actively foster an online community and respond thoughtfully and collaboratively to criticism vs. politicians who use social media as a one-way communications street. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Taking the idea of evolution of online fundraising and campaigning, and their effects, even farther, I was reading today that one of the Republican party leadership's major reasons for supporting SuperPACs (besides the obvious) is that they felt it evened the playing field against Obama moneywise. Even though he too obviously benefits from major donations to his SuperPACs, some Republican strategists explained that the gap between his ability to raise millions in small increments and the ability of any Repub. candidate to try and do the same was just far too large to overcome. So, Citizen's United is also in some ways related to this topic! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great topic! As for different marketing on FB, please see my comments on Blakes prospectus above. I also very interested to see how the quick spread of information influences the political process, as this is indeed a (relative) novum, especially in politics. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool topic. You may want to look into some of the background on the White House's social media initiative that was launched some time ago as well as some of the background on how members of the congress and senate have been using social media. I know alot of them have scrambled to set up social media teams to capitalize on the new media. It might be interesting to compare those who failed to use it wisely and those whe thrive with it. Some of those characteristics could be applied to campaign funding.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Prospectus Title: Social Structure's on the Writer's Forums of Cracked.com 
Research Focus: [http://www.cracked.com/ Cracked] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_2.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Hi Alex, I saw the Cracked.com webpage, very interesting and funny! It seems you have a narrowed work to work in, because you propose to main questions to develop in your investigation : freedom of expression, and norms within the site. When you mention this is a good example of a very successful mix of controlled format and elite members of a website to control the power, I’d like to know what are your thoughts, do you agree? Is this essential to run a website like this? Good luck, interesting website![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex,
Is this line correct – “free to enter forum”? I don’t understand what that means. This looks like it will be an interesting project. I wonder if the editors will be surprised by your findings, or possibly take issue with your conclusion, depending on the outcome. I am really looking forward to reading your paper.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

@Louiscelli I was trying to express that it is a closed forum in that you need an invite to enter, but that the invite is freely given as long as you bother to ask for it; thus it is a "free to enter" forum but not a totally open one. I just phrased it terribly awkwardly. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, unsolicited suggestion here but it would be really funny if your final project was formatted like a Cracked article and you gave the class an opportunity to post comments before the final submission. Then you could pull together a final version and comment on the process as it relates back to Cracked. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, great topic, very curious to see what your outcomes will be, especially on the question who decides and (maybe even more) on what grounds and how static vs dynamics plays a role in that aspect. I second Alexis' idea of a Cracked article format. Good luck![[User:MSS|MSS]] 03:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alex, you have an interesting challenge with your empirical research project since the answers to your research questions will require you to be actively involved in the whole article submission process. Do you plan on approaching the website in a similar way that the class approached the Wikipedia assignment? Good luck!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, your project seems very fun and interesting. I wasn’t aware of cracked.com before reading your prospectus. I would definitely suggest looking at the 1st amendment of the constitution but because of the complexity of the subject you could also consider looking at specific Supreme Court decisions. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of cracked.com. I had not come across it before. I can't help it, but I agree with Aditkowsky's idea of submitting a cracked article format.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Jeff Kimble 
Prospectus title: Internet E-Commerce 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_2.doc] 
[[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi Jeff, your project remembers me the phrase “buyers who bought this also bought this,” and the story of the author that became famous because of the long tail phenomenon. I think from the six questions you propose, number one encloses all of the other and it’s your starting point. Good luck with your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,
While I am sure there will be plenty of studies that address this, it will be nice to see the data synthesized, analyzed, and compacted into a short paper. You certainly will have lots of data to pour through. I will be particularly interested in some of your research as it will complement my project as well. Good luck, and if I run across any statistics that may be beneficial to your research, I’ll be sure to forward it along.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

Be careful not to get too broad with your data collection and lose sight of a focus, but this sounds really neat. One interesting aspect might be considering age. Aditkowsky's comment about the difference between perception and reality with online markets and community rings true to me, and I think the fact that I'm 22 has a lot to do with that. My parents are 65 and no force on Earth could convince them to use an online market over a brick and mortar one if there was any conceivable chance that the good existed in both formats. Anyway, enjoy! I'm looking forward to reading your results. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, one thing you might consider exploring is how some people feel that e-commerce signals the end of a community even though many e-commerce sites actually promote a sense of community (e.g. etsy) and bring people together in spite of their geographical differences. This [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/12/independent_bookstores_vs_amazon_buying_books_online_is_better_for_authors_better_for_the_economy_and_better_for_you_.html Slate article] and the flurry of comments might be interesting for you to check out, although it doesn't focus on the online community angle. Cheers! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a great topic and I like your approach. From what I can tell, you are dealing with a variety of discussion topics. From a personal standpoint, I would recommend focusing on how online shopping has changed consumer behavior. This direct can provide great insight into how these online sites market themselves. Good topic and good luck! --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Louis Celli 
Prospectus title: e-commerce Taxation 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_2_CELLI_Research_Prospectus.doc The Future of e-commerce Taxation] 
Comments: 

Hi Louis, your topic is interesting since it deals with taxation across states, I just would say you have to choose less questions from the list you’re proposing in order to have a more specific theme to work on during your research. It’s also valuable that you want to propose an e-commerce tax structure for all the states, but how are you going to measure the impacts and its viability? Good luck with your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Louis, your project sounds really interesting - I'm looking forward to seeing how your research comes together and what your final recommendations are. The scope does seem a bit daunting, though. Perhaps you could focus in on the impact to sellers and buyers, for example, and on the changed transaction experience for users. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 23:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

This sounds very ambitious and interesting, not to mention extremely relevant. The flat tax concept sounds workable and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing your results; I also selfishly hope you really delve into the legal/historical precedents for all of this quite a lot, since I love history and I feel like that's an area that could bear quite a lot of original thought. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Louis, I really like your topic a lot. I think it is great that you are actually doing research to reach an potential taxation solution/recommendation, which I assume will form the basis of your argument. Good work!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Louis your project seems very interesting and it will be definitely exploring a very problematic world. I was just curious of one aspect, and I hope I didn’t get this wrong but you are trying to develop a tax system for all of the 50 states correct? And if so, my feelings are that it could be a bit complicated to have all 50 states agree on one tax rate. Do you think this will be a major issue or it can easily be overcome? Also, you probably have thought of this already since you mentioned constitutional aspects but I just thought of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 while first reading your prospectus. Anyways it sounds really interesting and I will have great pleasure in reading it once it will be completed. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Prospectus title: Terrorist Websites 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Emanuel, your topic is very interesting, I assume you will research those laws that go in favor, or at least don’t prevent these terrorist organizations of continuing their activities. It would be interesting to know what legislation acts due to the foreign nature of these organizations. Good luck with your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Emanuele,
This is going to be an exciting paper indeed. This is a whopper and you might have trouble containing it to 10 pages. The First Amendment question might be a great place to start, then begin to wind in the Patriot act, while comparing it to the Espionage act of 1917. I can’t wait to read this paper, good luck![[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi Emanuele, very interesting topic. I'm trying to remember the show I listened to over the summer about infiltrating online forums that are used for recruiting new members. The story also touched on the use of video games for recruitment. I'll send the link once I remember what the show is.... Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 23:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I'd had this idea/had the sort of expertise and background you do to do it justice. I'm curious about how you'll make distinctions between "terrorist websites" that exist with the specific purpose of encouraging/recruiting to/supporting terrorism and simply anti-U.S. or very pro-militant Islam. The line is so blurry as to barely exist in most cases, which is obviously where the gov't runs into so much trouble in these types of efforts. Really looking forward to this one. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Emanuele, You are engaging into a very difficult and complex element of the internet. The American-born cleric who was recently killed in Yemen heavily relied on the internet to communicate with terrorists and many of the foiled terrorist attempts are linked to him. I think he would be a good starting point in your research. Good luck.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your precious advice and nice comments, I will definitely take into consideration your comments and I do realize that I have to narrow it down a bit. Thanks again![[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Julia Brav 
Prospectus title: [http://ask.metafilter.com/ Ask MetaFilter] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Jlynnping
 

Hi Julia, I think your project will be interesting, and as for Brendan Long’s proposal about Q&A sites, I’d like to know more about the level of reliability of the answers one can find in this type of sites, and also who decides if the information is right or wrong. I’m not familiar with Q&A sites so I’m sure your project will help me to understand their structure better and how they function. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Julia, I really like how interactive your project is and how participating in the community is an important part of your research methodology. While moderation and desire for quality are two reasons why people might choose Ask MeFi over other sites, I'd be curious to hear more about how you find the quality and depth of responses on the site. For example, while other Q&A sites might be more of a free-for-all, are there times when quantity is of greater benefit than tightly proscribed quality? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 01:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm still not convinced that I'd be willing to pay the $5 when it's so easy to get info from other sources on the web, especially if you know how to look. I like how involved in one community your project is (mine is similar in that I'm really trying to get a feel for a specific site and a specific group). I'm interested to hear more about how their process works! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your paper sounds fairly broad at this point. I think it is interesting how the website moderators are actively involved with the content of the website and how they interact or dictate the social norms would be interesting. Good luck.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah Metafilter is interesting. As its competitors in Yahoo Answers, Google Answers, Facebook, and Quora. MetaFilter fascinates me, however, because it does have the same venture capital funding or silicon valley press like the competitors I've listed above. How has it managed to keep its community intact? What is driving the content and hits on Google? I'll be interested to see why and how the MetaFilter community is better structured than its rivals. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Prospectus title: Managing a Flexible Work/Life Balance: Legal Ramifications of Facebook 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:2012_02_-_SZakuto_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Hi Samantha, your topic is very interesting, of course offense is evident in the cases you gave as examples, but your question of why one employee was fired and the other not is the starting point of your investigation. As for the prohibition in Missouri of having contact between teachers and students, it seems unfair and this would not prevent ruinning the reputation of others, so the results of your investigation abouth the legislation applied in these cases promess to be interesting. Good Luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Samantha, this is a really interesting topic and there are numerous directions you could take it. If you're interested in honing in on the relationship between offline and online behavior and speech, I can send over a bunch of readings about student free speech in schools. Additionally, the boundary between online/in school is still hotly debated - the Supreme Court recently refused to hear appeals related to online attacks against school officials and students ([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/court-rejects-appeals-in-_0_n_1210399.html Huffington Post]). Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea that is sadly relevant to my life and I suspect many others in the class. I don't really like having a Facebook and I police it pretty carefully, but it's also the only way I have of contacting the vast majority of people who are my Facebook friends. I'm especially interested on the ways in which the location you access a site from (home vs. school or work) can impact how liable you are for punishment. That is a very interesting and muddy intersection of internet life and brick and mortar life. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is very interesting and pertinent to many issues we face today. I think that there is a battle between free speech and the effects of that free speech in the professional sphere. Even though, say, a school teacher does have the constitutional freedom to write some bigoted post on his or her Facebook page, the effects of that speech can be pronounced on that person's school. In a number of cases, teachers are either suspended or dismissed for Facebook comments in which there are two sides; those who say that he is simply exercising free speech and those who believe that no one of that opinion should be teaching children. Interesting topic.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Nicholas Thibodeau 
Prospectus title: Anonymous 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Thibodeau_Assignment_2.pdf] 
Comments: 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Nicholas, your topic is very interesting, although there are limited resources of information of anonymous, as you mention. As I have understood, anyone can be part of anonymous, that’s what it is so difficult to identify their structure and how they function, but perhaps the more interesting part of your investigation would be why have they been successful in some cases. Good luck in your project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas, I'm looking forward to learning more about Anonymous in your final report. While this may lead you to murky legal waters, it would be cool if you could find a way to engage with the community in some way, or at least explore the process of how one becomes a part of Anonymous. Here's what came up first when I Googled "how do you join anonymous": [http://thehackernews.com/2011/03/how-to-join-anonymous-hacker-identity.html The Hacker News]. It's very Matrix-y. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Absolutely something I want to learn more about, looking forward to this. If you find a way to contact them (or research this otherwise but not sure how you would) I'm very curious about the number of people versus the actions performed by Anonymous. Is it a broad based group? Is it just a few key individuals who do the most high-profile things, simply supported by a large group that agrees with those actions? etc. Good luck finding them! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nicholas. Your topic sounds challenging since there doesn't seem to be a spokesman representing this movement or public statements. You will also be exploring how the "political protest" intersects with online technology. Are there other hacker groups like Anonymous? Are their tactics the same or different than Anonymous? Good luck with your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Quynh Dang 
Prospectus title: [http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Agj1j2NWf7soiMwgqNKlvo6e5HNG;_ylv=3 Yahoo! Answers] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Quynh_Dang_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Quynh Dang, the Q&A sites are a new topic for me, so I hope throughout your project I’ll became more familiar with them. As for the Julia’s project and Brendan Long’s project, which are also addressing this topic like yours, I’d like to know how do they manage the level of reliability of the answers. I also would like to see the results of your investigation, especially the part of the incentives they give to promote the participation of more people. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Quynh, two things come to mind when reading your prospectus. 1) What's the value to you of having more points, particularly since there isn't a chat function and the users are anonymous? 2) You might want to connect with Julia Brav, who is evaluating Ask MetaFilter. Perhaps you could develop some sort of collaboration? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely talk to Julia Brav, you have an interesting opposite to her project's subject in some ways, especially with what behaviors are encouraged within the site. I assume that simply by getting so much information, sheer mass filters out the worst effects of a totally open system... but maybe not? The point system seems like an equal motivator to both useful and spammy and unhelpful activities, so I'll be curious what your conclusions are about how that plays out in actuality. Good luck with your research! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quynh. I think ''Yahoo! Answers'' is an interesting site that I have participated in. One of the problems with ''Yahoo! Answers'' (which I do not find with other sites such as Wikipedia) is that the validity of the answers provided is based on the number of answers submitted (as well as the rating system which you described). I have participated in Yahoo Answers in the past and often receive 2-3 answers at the most, which doesn't make me feel confident that I am getting the right answer. I think a fascinating point of focus is the "competitive" element of the scoring. Do gaining points and achieving different levels encourage better answers or cause competitive respondents to provide less accurate answers for the mere aspiration of gaining points? Good luck with your project. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Christopher Mejo 
Prospectus title: Building a New Online Community in Drupal 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Final_project_prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:chrism|chrism]] 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Christopher, sorry if my question is trivial but what do you mean by saying that you will have to contemplate several non-democratic values to make sure your website runs smoothly? And also I’m curious if you’re creating this website to answer the questions of your project about freedom of expression and reputation of the website. Good luck with your website and final project![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Christopher, I'm curious to hear more about how you plan to attract readers and community members to your site. What's the value proposition? Do people want financial and investment advice from their peers? Who is your target audience and what sites are they currently engaging with and how are they engaging with them? Developing your own site and attracting users in the next two months is quite an undertaking - maybe there's a way to explore the issues you raise in your prospectus by looking at existing forums for where people discuss finance? I can't say I go to this kind of site myself but [http://www.finance30.com/ Finance 3.0] came up during a Google search as did this article [http://www.accountingdegree.com/blog/2009/50-awesome-social-networks-for-finance-geeks/ 50 Awesome Social Networks for Finance Geeks]. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed @Aditkowsky, I'll be interested to see what approach you take towards building up site membership. You may want to find a more specific niche that you notice is going unfulfilled on some of the main financial websites. I'm also interested that you're intentionally using advertising from day 1- it'd be great if you could find some way to get feedback from site viewers on how that affects their feelings about the site as a whole. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your project sounds very challenging and will require a detailed understanding of programming which I assume you have. As I understand it, the niche of the site will be economics/investment. I would be interested in knowing whether governance techniques for other sites will be the same for an investment basics site. One can only assume that the nature of governance (and the personal information provided) will be different between a financial site and say a video game or online game site (perhaps not).--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Brendan Long 
Prospectus title: Question & Answer Website Services and the Impact of Social Media 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Final_Project_Prospectus_-_Long%2C_Brendan.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brendan, since you mention you will provide a timeline and historical content of the Q&A sites and social media, and also a comparison of them and impact of the social media on them, I would suggest your work to be more focused on the analysis of the information you find. This means that although the overview of Q&A is necessary for your work, we already know more or less the social media, and I like to read about your question of Q&A functions within these sites, which is a topic totally new, at least for me. Good luck, very interesting![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Hi Brendan,
Cool idea. I’m not on facebook, so I wasn’t aware that there was a separate section for answer seekers. I use dedicated Q & A sites quite a bit. The one’s that make me register before looking at them, I usually pass by. Mostly, I use sites dedicated to Android programming, other IT community sites, specific auto repair questions, and one legal questions site. On two occasions, I paid a small fee for “good” answers on JustAnswers.com.
The sites I have found to be credible and useful are; avvo (A V V O - looks like a W when they are close together).com for legal questions, JustAnswer.com (this is the site where I agreed to “donate” a token fee for a correct answer), forum.xda-developers.com for some of my Android questions, liliputing.com (again for Android), and Cyanogenmod.com (yep, again for Android stuff).
It’s been my experience that experts tend to collect in likeminded online communities. I’m not sure what social network sites offer, but I think that intrinsically technical question seekers might need to go outside of the general social network platform in search of community sites dedicated to the specific topic. It will be a really interesting study – I’m looking forward to seeing your results. Best of luck. [[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi Brendan, Julia Brav and Quynh Dang are also looking at aspects of Q&A sites - it might be fun to try to find a way to work with them. In terms of your prospectus, I'm most intrigued by how successful Q&A is on social networking sites. What are the benefits and challenges? And how much is success dependent on your personal ability to engage your friends/contacts/followers vs. a larger community's engagement with a dedicated Q&A site? [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems one like one major thing that the Q and A sites have going for them is that they've managed to entrench themselves in certain communities already; fans of certain types of video games know the best sites, engineers know the best sites for that, etc. It'll be interesting to see what you find with social media sites and how they are going to try and balance their broad appeal with an attempt to create very specifically useful Q and A sections. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So your main goal is to examine how social media can influence the popularity (and authenticity) of Q & A sites? I would imagine that social media can be viewed as a means for advertising or popularizing Q & A sites. Would your focus be on how users of a Q & A site may choose to popularize that site through their Facebook or twitter accounts? One interesting point may be to examine the behavior of users who choose to popularize Q & A sites through social media. Do they feel that a certain answer is significant that everyone should know? Is a certain type of answer or topic the reason why they would likely integrate social media? --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Hope Solomon 
Prospectus title: Communicating with Constituents through Twitter 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_2_Hope_Solomon.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Hope Solomon, it seems that architecture and norms used on twitter have favored the political leaders in their campaigns. I wonder if there’s any limitation to its usage for political purposes, and if so you include them in your project. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hope, this is a great topic and I look forward to following your research for the rest of the semester. It might be helpful to identify different kinds of twitter "engagement" and make an attempt at quantifying them. For example, how many @ replies are there vs. general status updates? Is there some way to evaluate the "quality" of the tweets? Do the politicians make use of hashtags and, if so, to what effect? It might also be interesting to note the number of followers at the start and end of the project. And finally, by the end of the project, do you have any best practices for politicians for how to engage their community and get (or at least seem like you're getting) things done? Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great idea- how will you deal with the fact that many politicians Twitter feeds are at least partially actually managed by a series of pr experts/interns who follow set instructions for the material they post? I obviously don't know if this is true for the specific ones you mentioned, but it would be an interesting extra layer where the format of the site actually creates a false sense of closeness for subscribers. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great topic!Is Twitter more a tool for the politicians to advertise themselves rather than an interactive tool between constituent and politician? Is there solid evidence that Twitter really has initiated change (constituent protest on Twitter leads to reforms by politician)? I look forward to reading your paper. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I can say from experience, Twitter has been the most beneficial platform to me. I have made invaluable connections, found work, and interacted with some interesting people. I've often thought about Twitter's community and communication guidelines. Why are they so effective? What drives the tweet traffic on Twitter? I concluded that it is powerful and effective because it is completely open. There are no walls to stop anyone from interacting or sharing information with anyone else. It is the first entirely open communication platform. I am writing my prospectus on StockTwits, which is an app similar to Twitter. We should talk if you would like to field an interesting discussion. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Yerzhan Temirbulatov 
Prospectus title: Endless war on piracy 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:YerzhanTemirbulatov_EndlessWarOnPiracy.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Yerzhan, I think your second question is the center of your investigation, because you can investigate what were the effects of the shutting down of Megaupload. As for the question of SOPA/PIPA and ACTA role in the online copyright piracy, I would say this would not be certainly defined in the near future, at least in the next weeks—just my opinion. Good luck!, interesting project.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yerzhan, I'm very interested in the discussion of Russian torrent sites, particularly since so much of the class discussion is geared toward the US. I'd love to see a comparison between a site like Megaupload and the leading Russian torrent sites, and I'd also love to learn more about emergence of Tribler and its potential impact on file sharing. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic certainly is relevant to the course discussion. I am not sure if it will be too challenging to analyze the effects of the megaupload closure since the arrests occurred not too long ago (maybe I'm underestimating the dynamic quality of the internet). Good luck with your work. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting extension of the discussions we've had in class, I'll be interested to see how good the statistics you can find are. Is this the sort of thing where the given statistics are totally trustworthy? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Tara Baechel 
Prospectus title: The Internet, Adoption and the Privacy of Minors 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Baechel_Assignment_2.pdf Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:TBaechel]] 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Tara, I think you raise really interesting questions about whether the release of private information online helps or hinders adoption agencies' marketing efforts. I might suggest that instead using fundraising websites set up by parents as a complement to your main research topic, you could look to forums/discussion boards that include potential and current adoptive parents. What can you learn about their preferences from monitoring those communities? What might adoption agencies learn that could affect the way they communicate with parents pursuing adoption? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is powerful. My brother adopted two children many years ago and he never had this wealth of information on perspective children. I think that moral issues may arise (as you mentioned) regarding the type and amount of information released concerning these children, both in the adoption process and many years later when these children are part of the internet public record. Hopefully you will be able to find more focus as you continue your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, and the point about this information coming back to haunt the children later in their life is a very strong one that hadn't occurred to me. Do you think that the lack of information, while better for the children, may actually deter potential parents to some degree? I know adoption is something that people generally are very committed to if they are considering it, but would a lack of information actually hinder the ability of some sites/groups to draw in possible adoptive parents? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tara, from your prospectus, your project seems very interesting but also very difficult. I have some knowledge even though limited of the minors world and legal issues. I worked in the DA’s Office Domestic Violence Unit and I personally encountered many problems regarding information and minors. Because of this, I am very eager to read your final project once it is completed. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Manuel Valerio 
Prospectus title: Internet, fame and speed to Market 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:MPValerio_Assignment-2_Internet_Fame.pdf] 
Comments: 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Manuel, in addition to the ideas you raise in your prospectus, I'd be interested in hear more about the specific role of an online community (or communities) in propelling a person or product to prominence. What quality of the community and what actions taken by the users contributed to the outcome? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manuel, I did not really get your research question. What answer are you planning to give? How do you plan to sue Lessig framework. I am unsure about the claim that it is really new and the role of internet. I will maybe also see the connection with other media such as tv shows. Best of luck!!!--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 15:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is interesting and I too have wondered how the internet has sped up fame for a particular star. You seem to be focusing on blogging, which may pose complications since there are many other online avenues that can contribute to the rise of a popular musician or actor. To separate blogs from youtube, review sites and music sites may be challenging. Are you focusing on the collective blogsphere of amateur individuals, or professional blogs written by well-known bloggers?--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One interesting aspect of this is whether the "fame" produced by an internet-fueled sudden rise to stardom is as permanent as fame that came through more traditional channels would be. Look at the Lana Del Rey pushback with her terrible performance on SNL; since then she has done much better on Letterman, but her album has been regarded critically as pretty average, and that sudden internet fame may end up disappearing as quickly as it came. Blogs are very focused in the moment, especially pop-culture ones. Is that really conducive to creating long-lasting success? I'm really looking forward to reading this one. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Marjolein Siegenthaler 
Prospectus name: Airbnb.com 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_2_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc 
Comments: [[User:MSS|MSS]] 22:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Marjolein, I think looking at the rules and norms for airbnb is a great topic. You might consider looking at [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing.org] as a point of comparison since the culture explicitly values the connection between hosts and guests. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marjolein, I am personally interested in your subject because few days ago a friend of mine told me to put my vocational house on it. Regarding, your question, I will also check what kind of policy do airbnb put in place to refrain such behavior, like credit card number given to the police, check of the identity, etc? And how does this comply with the protection of privacy? I like the idea of Adi to compare policy with other similar websites. Best of luck.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great research questions, this seems like a nightmare of potential legal problems that could be tied up across different national systems. What if they went back to their country before you realized they damaged your home? How do you even get at them? But at the same time, it seems like the site would be wise to totally protect itself from any liability, and function only as an intermediary, with no guarantee. If they could be found responsible for damages they'd be doomed, and very open to possible scamming too. Neat project. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marjolein,
I thought I'd send you a link to coverage on AirBNB from Gawker (http://gawker.com/airbnb/), stemming from the singular incident described in your prospectus. These reports have an overwhelming negative (and arguably libelous) slant (but that's Gawker for you). I hope that these might be useful in your investigation.[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marjolein, Your topic certainly touches upon some general legal arguments that may apply to any media outlet in which there is a transaction of some sort. If you look at newspapers that have “want ads” and postings, an argument could be made that the newspaper is in some way liable since there was a payment for the want ad to be published. Your questions on how the site regulates the type of information provided, and whether that regulation diminishes or increases the chances that arrangements not working out, should lead to interesting avenues of thought. I would consider examining policies on two different fronts; how the regulation of information attracts users, and how the regulation of information increases the likelihood of transactions working out.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In terms of community devlopment, AirBnb is an interesting case. Like the people mentioned above, a single incident where a AirBnb user trashes another AirBnb user's apartment can break the entire community. What is worth looking into here is the fragility behind the AirBnb community. In addition, what are the steps AirBnb is taking to support that fragility? I'm also curious to hear what your opinion is on AirBnb and hotels. Would you rather use AirBnb or a hotel? Why? What is AirBnb doing with its community and users that is worse or better than a hotel? [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Gregorian Hawke 
Prospectus name: twentymine.com 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Talk_to_Strangers_v1.0.odt 
Comments: 
Hi Gregorian, I love your Minecraft story and I think it would be very interesting to focus in on this community. Maybe you could look specifically at your own relationship with the members of your sub-community and the ways in which you built trust through gaming together. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregor, Your idea and the way you connect the “small talk” and the trust that can come up from it is interesting. Some features of the some community seem to increase the trust between the users. I will be very interested in the result of your study. And if, except yourself, other users have similar experiences to share. I never did! Good luck
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Gregorian, I think the idea of looking at the internet as a forum for non-monetary, trust-based material exchanges is a good one. It would be great if there was one community you could look at where those exchanges have succeeded and failed, or where there are formal or informal criteria for when a level of trust has been established to allow a transaction to take place. [[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 19:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great anecdote from Minecraft! You may want to come up with a very simple survey to measure "trust," ie. a number scale from 1 to 10 and they rate how much they would trust a stranger in real life, in Minecraft, on a gaming forum, etc. Might help you to quantify answers a little better. I know this will be a fun one to read! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the psychological/behavioral aspect of your topic. I think that internet users in online communities may develop a sense of trust in much the same way that all of us do in our everyday lives; we develop trust by interacting with someone continuously. However I think that trust in today’s digital age is weighed against the potential misuses of that trust (i.e. fraud, identity theft). Of course trust is also built on common interests and can be augmented by exchanging advice that leads to a more rewarding product or discussion. Your topic is a bit broad but I think you can find some interesting conclusions about trust and how the internet has shaped that trust.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Mike Brant 
Prospectus Title: Children for Peace/Youth for Peace Online Community 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Children_for_Peace-Youth_for_Peace_Online_Community_-Mike_Brant.doc 
[[User:Mike|Mike]] 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Mike, you raise some interesting points in your prospectus. I wonder about some of the challenges of using an online platform for engagement with kids (at least in the US, there are [http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm lots of rules] governing communications to children under the age of 13) and about how you might connect with kids/youth who have limited or no access to the Internet. Perhaps your research will help address some of those issues. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike, if I have well understood your objective is to create a community of children willing peace and acting in different way for it. Your research question is about the online norms to regulate this community? As a consequence, I would rather stick on this and see the censorship issues and also investigate on how to deal with kids rather than go to see the success of peace teaching in the world which is a totally different and hard subject? Best of luck!! By the way, no website yet about this project?--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike, if there is another website you know of that is focused on fostering international dialogue amongst youth, you might want to just focus on that one community? [[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 19:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that a site that children could actually access and participate in would need to have stronger regulation than just "golden rule" and the basic Wikipedia sort of social contract, as successful as it has been. This may be my bit more pessimistic view of human nature online, but I think that it is hard to market a site related to youth and children if they can't participate much on it, and hard to market a site children can participate in without pretty clear and strong protections for them... I'll be interested to see what you conclude. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

While I consider your goal of a peace-oriented website to be a valiant effort, I am not sure if you can regulate “negative” material that almost certainly will abound if users are left to contribute to the materials, which in turn could lead to political problems. I am just not sure how you could regulate the recognition of problems if the goal of the website is to find a peaceful solution to those problems (perhaps it is just the political scientist in me). UNCESCO, is, if I’m not mistaken, a United Nations organization, and therefore likely works with the various other UN groups on their specific goals. You are dealing with an interesting political issue as it relates to online forums and good luck with your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: David Taber 
Prospectus: Coffee Shop vs. Grocery Store: Where and how local news is discussed on the web
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:David_Taber_prospectus_E-120.odt] 
Comments 
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 
I could have sworn I uploaded this on Tuesday, but it appears I forgot to hit submit. Sorry! 
Hi David, I really like your concept and I think it also touches on the issue of fair use we read about this week. It might also be interesting to note how much of the original article is reposted and how much additional commentary Universal Hub makes on the article. I've found that commentors can often be negligent when it comes to reading the original source so you might want to take that into consideration when evaluating the differences in comments. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear David, I thing you have found there a real way to compare 2 comparable materials and will have great and maybe unexpected results. What will be interesting is if you find comments from a common commentator to see the difference in the speech depending on the website. I would also link your comparison to the difference in the tons adopted by both websites that can influence the content of the comments left. Best of luck!
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What a great way to be able to study the effect of the form information is presented in, nice idea. My instinct is that certain people will heavily trust one or the other more, even if the same info is given in both. I'm also interested in how certain info (say a very serious and depressing story) would be altered in order to fit into both? How does that work, if a particular story doesn't really feel natural to appear on the Hub site? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 

 
Name: Carl Fleming 
Prospectus Title: Khan Academy 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fleming_Assignment_2.doc 
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments 
I am very amazed to discover your prospectus as it is very similar to mine. Regarding your first question I am wondering if the success of the Academy lies on the architecture, your answer will be very interesting to me, or if it lies on the way Kahn taught the subject. My feeling is that the second option is the right one. As for your second question, this article and especially the comments associated to it can help you to get some answer. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_khan/all/1
As for me, Kahn Academy is a wonderful free supplement to traditional offline education but does not reach the objective targeted. This is, as Gates says, a first step to the Revolution.
I like your research questions but I am losing some logical links with the methodology used. Why not focusing on the use of the Academy in the traditional education space in California, and check the result of the evaluation, if any, on “impoverished” students.
Same for “Critique of the Academy”, I do not see the link. I would rather focus on the constructivism, the interactivity and the quality of the teaching (cf. the article).
 --[[User:Sab|Sab]] 13:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question, I'm glad so many people are focusing on education from a variety of different angles. I feel like some very relevant conclusions could be drawn from compiling the 5 or so different reports that look at the intersections of internet and education. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carl,
I was really excited to see that you're focusing on Khan Academy (I learned about it only recently, and I've since become semi-addicted to doing practice questions). I think a comparative study of the Academy's architecture vs. that of traditional education methods could yield very interesting results. I'd also be curious to hear your thoughts on user-coaches (that is, how any user can theoretically provide coaching in addition to Sal Khan's coaching videos), and how you think that adds or detracts (or both) from the Academy's overarching mission.[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-03-06T00:03:14Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 21. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. '''Please remember to sign your comments!'''

===Submissions===
 
Name: Stefan Cheplick 
Prospectus: Social Finance and StockTwits
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Social_Finance_Internet_and_Society.doc] 
Prospectus 2: Bitcoins (in development. for fun.)
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:InternetandSociety_Bitcoins_SJC.doc] 
Comments: 

Name: Sab 
Prospectus:
Free Online High-Quality Education: The Next Revolution on Internet?[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Sab_Assignment_2.doc_-_Copie.doc] 
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 13:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 

Hi Sab, I like your topic a lot because my project has to do also with distance education online. I’m working on the Open University case. It seems that you have a specific question that is related to the emergence of high-quality student-centric education system as a true public good, and I would say your question is good narrowed, but would be better if you work in just one of the cases of the four you mentioned—Sal Khan’s project, MITx, Harvard, and the London School of Economics. I’d like to know more about Khan’s project since we already know how the online paid degrees are in Harvard. Very interesting, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sabrina, I find your topic very interesting! I am curious to find out how the lack of interaction between students and teachers affect the quality of online versus offline education, and how you are going to measure it? Or if you are interested in exploring how the lack of students and teachers interaction affect the quality of education, I suggest comparing a community with interaction to one without. Best, Quynh. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Hello, Thanks for your comments. Intercations can be measured when you have forumn, lie lectures or section, wiki. Success is measurable by the rate of drop out, the rate of success, ect. Thanks again for helping me to be more precised. --[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Make sure to narrow your thesis to something you can study and argue in a quantifiable way, but this sounds like an interesting concept. How much will you be using our specific class as a source? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Our class is wonderful example of tools put in place to create interactivity between students and teachers. The quantitative part will be more an observation of the students community. When looking of forum, you can draw the best model that students are looking for. Therefore, I will try to find a way to quantify the criteria that students are looking for in an online education system.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sab. You picked a wonderful topic. I completed most of my undergraduate degree through distance education, and had experienced DL at various institutions and levels. I am glad to see someone is interested in the rich opportunities DL offers.

This prospectus covers a lot of topics. With the 10-page limit you may want to narrow down to one or two. I suggest

A. the first thing you could do is to define your subject – free online education websites (e.g. MIT OpenCourseWare, Ted Talk, etc) or DL facilitated by educational institutions (e.g. Harvard Extension School, University of London International Programmes, etc), as both serve different purposes and are operated differently.

B. Out of all the areas you wish to explore, I personally would love to read about “the economic model of free online education websites” as well as “the construction of the teacher and student interactive community”. I think the quality of education and professionalism of teachers are really institution-dependent. HES here is a leader in providing quality education and best teachers because the school obviously would not like to mess up the Harvard name *grin*. But I can imagine certain institutions may not stick to the same ideal. So I personally do not find this issue worthy of much ponderance.

As for copyright of the lectures, I think it’s an interesting issue as well. I’ve once asked Professor Allan Ryan, Harvard’s IP lawyer and the instructor of HES’ IP and Media Law courses, whether obtaining the copyright of the material we use in the DE courses is an issue. He replied that luckily , the US has a law that says using copyrighted material for educational purposes is considered fair use. So we are covered in most aspects. The relevant laws are 1) Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002, and 2) amendment to the US Copyright Law section 110(2). Hope this information helps! Yep, We have seen that in class. I wwas also suprised by the fair use for non profit education prurposes.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. In fact, I plan just to observe the student community and try to make a matricial scheme that let emerge a model as intercativity, professionnalism of the teacher, free degree, non degree, tradename, etc. Then, I will try to see the issues that such model rise like copyright, economic model--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sabrina, your project seems very interesting and I have always thought about education, degrees and online programs. I personally think that if a person wants an education he or she can do that either by means of a computer or by going to a library. On the other hand we must consider today’s job market and the requirements (degrees) to meet in order to obtain a good job. I am curious to read your findings and I would like to wish you good luck on your paper. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you so much--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great idea for a prospectus. Here are two of my immediate thoughts: I've often wondered if Khan Academy, for example, will someday be able to give out diplomas that employers respect? Since the release of Khan Academy I've noticed several other websites try to mimic it. Now Youtube is flooding with educational videos online(Google search results too). So, how will users of the Internet empower the best non-profit, online, community education platforms? [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting topic and, to a degree, it somewhat overlaps with my proposed topic to study Khan Academy. As for comments, I would just echo what some others have already mentioned: try to limit the scope of your thesis. There is a lot of material to cover, and we only have so many pages. I am struggling with this myself.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sab - interesting topic. I'd second (or third) the others in narrowing your thesis. DL is a huge topic. Looking forward to reading your conclusions! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--[[User:YHHsiao|YHHsiao]] 10:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: You-Hwa Hsiao 
Prospectus:
ACTA and the protests – a reaction to the governmental control extending into the cyber world[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Hsiao_assignment2.pdf] 
Comments: 
Hi You-Hwa, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) sounds like a very interesting topic. I'm curious to hear more about how you plan to monitor the anti-ACTA community while you explore the impact of ACTA on online behavior. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Hi You-Hwa Hsiao, I like the theme you propose and think it is narrowed to the ACTA case. You mention the question of how the ACTA galvanizes the Internet community, and that you want to follow the rest of the semester the development of this event. In this way, I would suggest your work to be more in an analytical sense than informative, developing interesting discussions and analysis with the information you will gather. Interesting topic, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I like your prospectus and your topic is relevant. In particular, I find it interesting that hacking and cyberattacks are viewed as a sign of protest and that this protest element has assumed nontraditional forms. I think that you are covering a lot of ground with your thesis and you may want to focus on a particular dimension of ACTA/response to ACTA.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I really like how you're exploring some issues of online vs. physical life in your topic. I'm interested to see not just how your project develops but how your subject develops between now and the end of the course; it's such a current and evolving thing that you may get to study some really great major events related to it even in such a short span of time! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your topic is very relevant and I look forward to reading you paper. I am very curious to learn about these common (are they?) norms and values of the people in the virtual world vs those in the physical world and what it is exactly that they are protesting against [[User:MSS|MSS]] 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I think your topic is very much related to the course and I will suggest the Lessig framework. I will also be interested in profiling the internet users that protest on and offline. Good luck!--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 18:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi You-Hwa, you raised many interesting questions in your prospectus. I am interested in finding out how the ACTA impact online behaviors, specifically, what are they trying to protect with the opposition? [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 10:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You-Hwa, I appreciate your prospectus. It is indeed interesting in how some hacker groups are protesting by attacking websites. I think the term for these people is Hacktivists? Not sure. In regards to your paper, I am incredibly interested in how the hacker groups develop their Hacktivsim. What is their management structure? Where do they organize? How does someone become a member? [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool topic. I too am very intrigued by the whole community of hacker groups that protest by attacking websites. My only comment is that I had a difficult time truly understanding what you will be measuring when you speak of online life and virtual life. It would seem like each would have infinite things to measure, and it might be beneficial to define a short list so that the universe of things measured is well defined.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Very relevant topic. Seems like you will have a lot of research. How exactly do you intend to study or measure this? Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 10:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Harvard212 
Prospectus: Being Nice and Free Speech on the Internet[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Harvard212_Assignment2.pdf] 
[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 16:34 EST, 21 February 2012 
Comments: 

Hi Harvard212, I think you would have to apply what Rob said in class: cut your project in half, then in half, and whatever is left in third. This is not to say your topic is not interesting, I think it is, but—in my opinion—the question is very broad, and I would suggest to you to choose one part of being “nice” on the Internet, for example what kind of Etiquette can you find in a specific community (like we already analyzed in the Wikipedia’s case), or in a specific bloggers’ web page. Good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi @Harvard212, I'd love to hear more about the community you plan to study. It sounds like you've lined up a good framework for starting your review and it's now a matter of narrowing down the scope. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

Agreed, this is certainly an interesting concept (what does "nice" mean? what are its implications? is it universal?) and I'll be interested to see how you narrow it down to a controlled topic for study. Be careful not to give yourself too much; tons of background research is great but its real value often comes when you can focus it on something very specific [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sofia, I like your project very much but I too feel that it might be a bit too extensive. My suggestion would be to focus more on a single or few specific parts and then it will definitely be a great paper. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your project is ambitious and deals with philosophical/sociological questions regarding the expansive internet and how norms can benefit the entire community. While I am not sure if a general set of norms can be established with millions of users from across the world with their own agendas and online needs, obviously Wikipedia would be a good example of norms being established and these norms are established within the websites themselves. Are you focusing more on norms or norms "as set by law"? How do norms of one website vary with another similar website based on the needs of the consumer? Good start.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. Very curious to see if you are able to find an universal meaning of "nice". I do hope you have found someone to work in a group with, as this seems like a very extensive topic and corresponding reasearch. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Harvard212, Interesting topic, but to narrow it down, I suggest choosing an online community, such as Wikipedia, and see how the "be nice" rule plays out. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 11:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would just reiterate what certain others have pointed out above: (i) finding a definition of "nice" may be difficult and (ii) you may benefit from tightening the scope of your work. Otherwise, I think it looks like an outstanding area for research.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You certainly picked an interesting thesis! Do you plan to focus on wikipedia only, or several online communities? May be helpful to make a comparison of the social norms on various platforms. Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: BSK342 
Prospectus: Community, Architecture, and Regulation in the Something Awful Forum Space
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Bsk342assignment2.pdf] 
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi BSK342, I really like your topic because part of the daily junk I find on the Internet comes from them. I know there are some very interesting forums and they have reliable information, but most of the time the information is just incomplete or not worthy to read. I only wonder how are you going to follow how members of the community engage in other spaces, because I think is quite difficult. Very interesting, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool topic. I'm particularly interested in what you observe/learn about people's willingness to pay for additional services. So often websites/applications/businesses struggle with how to monetize a good idea - perhaps your research will shed some light on this for managers of online communities. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I think your project sounds interesting and you are asking many questions that applies to all types of forums and online social behavior. Although I am not familiar with the Something Awful forums, I agree with Aditkowsky that it is interesting that the site does charge a subscription fee to post comments. This could be an interesting point of departure. Is the quality of the content stronger if people are paying for access? Does the subscription fee filter out those who may not be as serious about the forum? Good work.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I definitely remember SA as a site I visited a lot when I was younger, I'm really looking forward to hearing what it has evolved into during the past years! The focus on how sites manage to monetize themselves is a very good one, and one that always seems to be such a make or break moment. I feel like SA is a place that tends to cater towards younger and more internet savvy viewers/members... how does that affect the process of attempting to gain profit off of it? Are they more likely to pay to support something they care about, or are they less likely than an older person with less internet experience who is used to paying for everything? Have fun! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. There are many of these sites which have proliferated content across the WWW. Although, I see it in trends. Goregallery was one of these sites, then it was worth1000, something awful, and so on. I think that users get a laugh out of it. It used to be emails, then it was myspace, facebook, and so on and so forth. Perhaps there is something more human in needing to share these laughs based in norms?
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 03:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also particularly interested on the monetary part of your research questions. Will quality be better when paid for? Will people feel even more connected to the forum when they pay for it (us vs them?) Would it be the same if they made it free or the amount to be paid at the discretion of the user (the article of Chris Anderson,"the Long Tail" see class readings for February 14, 2012 might be useful.[[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi BSK342, I think you made an interesting proposal. I am interested in finding out why people would pay for this forum. Perhaps it is the "privilege" people buy for $9.99? I think your approach of observing how the policies and guidelines play out in practice is good. I suggest that you pick another forum (one without a privilege fee) to compare it with. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am very interested in your topic, but struggled with two items: valuation and monetization. It was unclear to me how you might value the content in order to set the price. It was then unclear to me how that content may be monetized. I think it may just have been because it is such a short space to cover all these details. Good luck with the project.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how you will be able to determine the motivation behind paying for the ability to post in the forums? Also think your results will be very interesting! I agree with Qdang about making a comparison. Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Blake Geno 
Prospectus: Anonymity, Privacy and Evolving Tools
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Blakegeno_prospectus.odt] 
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 
Hi Blake, in thinking about your project, it might be interesting to select a few sites using [http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/108/ facebook connect] and evaluate how this option can impact user privacy and anonymity. It seems like this could sync up with the themes you discuss in your prospectus while also narrowing the scope. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Hi Blake Geno, when you say you intend to do: “I., II., III.” I would say only one of those items should be your topic. All three of them are very interesting and surely you would find substantial information. For example, I’ve read that Facebook do not really respect anonymity entirely, that when you decide to close your page they keep the information, and also their policies change very often, and this affect the users. Do we really have privacy and anonymity in Facebook? Good luck, interesting proposals.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Blake. Your project does pose some significant questions as to the types of data that sites like Facebook collect and what that information is used for. You can define the goal of collecting information into two categories; positive (improving the user experience) and negative (selling the information for marketing purposes). Great research question. Hopefully you will be able to focus on more specific dimension of this important.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in how exactly you are going to go about this. It could be really neat to create a whole persona with the relevant info that a website wants and then try and link it across a large number of sites that demand a log in/personal info/etc. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blake, Very interesting topic! Facebook was recently the focus of CNBC 60 min., and lights were shed on the topics you are discussing in our paper, especially the targeted adversising. In the show, I remember someone saying that FB advertising was an entirely different ballgame, as people on Facebook are not travelling from A to B but like to stay on the FB page and thus "want" to be distracted by advertising, whereas advertising in a traditional way aims on how to advertise for people who are going from one website to another and are not looking for distraction. I think that this would be very intersting for your project. If you google Facebook, CNBC and 60 min, you will probably find the show. Also, this article I just read on Forbes by Kashmir Hill, called "Facebook user unwittingly becomes sex lube pitchman thanks to sponsored stories", dated Feb 28, 2012, may interest you. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Blake, your prospectus is thought-provoking and as a Facebook user I would be very interested in your findings. I do however feel that it could get a bit complicated for what concerns the appropriate research but keep up with the good work. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi BlakeGeno, your prospectus contains many interesting and ambitious questions. As a suggestion, you can narrow it down by asking what effect does user identification have on the end user? Does the requirement of user identification prevent spamming and abusive comments? I am interested in finding out how you are going to answer this. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 12:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Timely topic. Given the recent news on Facebook and Google and their collection of data, this is sure to be a rapidly growing area of research. If you haven't already considered it, I would be interested in learning about data collection by an entity like Facebook or Google and the relationship with tethered devices. How far does this information gathering extend without our even knowing it?
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blake - sounds like you have your work cut out for you. you may want to narrow it down to only a few sites. will you study Google+ and Google's new privacy policy? [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Abby Bergman 
Prospectus Title: Pinterest: Visually Arrested 
Link to Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:ABergman_Prospectus.pdf] 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 Comments: 

Hi Abby, I think your proposal is very interesting, especially because it is addressing a topic we have covered in the course: the Fair Use in Copyright. I would say your results will be useful for this course because they promise to be a good example of what it is Fair Use. Good luck! great choice.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abby, I applaud you for finding something meaty to explore with Pinterest. I'm curious as to how you will monitor instances of reported infringement on the site. Perhaps you could figure out which companies complain the most and then intentionally post their images so you can experience Pinterest's process for addressing potential infringement firsthand? (Maybe run that by one of the lawyers in class first....) Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I think you raise some important questions in regards to copyright laws and Fair Use. Your questions are relevant and you have a good thesis question. I checked out pinterest.com for the first time now and I think the Fair Use argument is validated. Good job with the prospectus!
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a really well thought out project; you know exactly the frame you want to look at this through and I think you'll come up with some very relevant conclusions. Studying a site that is still on its way up will definitely give you a chance to keep this going and check your theories against what happens with Pinterest over the next year or two! Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Your topic, questions and overall frame are very clear. Very curious about the outcome, I would think the hosting aspect is the sting. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abby, recently Pinterest is popping up everywhere. I think you have a good focus by exploring the possibility for copyright infringement. Your methodology, comparing Pinterest and Google Images, and investigating Pinterest's policy on using copyrighted material and the court's opinion in Perfect 10 vs Google case, is well planned out . Good job on your proposal! [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting line of research on a site that is clearly extremely hot right now. I am impressed with your level of focus this early on in the process (review of cases, case study comparisons). Good luck with this project.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jennifer Lopez 
Prospectus title: The New Era of Online Activism 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_2.pdf Final Project Prospectus] [[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments:

Hi Jennifer, I like your proposal of analyzing online activism sites like change.org, purpose.com, avaaz.org, although I think you should choose one of these for your project. I also think the effectiveness of online activism has been proven, because we have seen cases like the Arab Spring, the Occupy Wall Street and the Bank of America’s decision to rescind it’s proposal, but what I like of your project is that you will explain how they were effective and how the organizations began. Very interesting, good luck![[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jennifer, I'm very much looking forward to seeing your video interviews once they come together. In additional to the perspectives of founders, I'm also interested to hear more from the participants in the campaigns you study. Perhaps you could reach out to community members as well. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Interviews is a neat way to go about this project and this is an issue that always bothers me; just how much does power or activism on the internet translate to real impacts on people's lives? Be careful to research without being biased though; as much as I generally agree with you that online activism is real-world effective, there may be some instances where it wasn't, and that could be just as interesting! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is very relevant with the current affairs of United States and the world. I think it is safe to conclude that online protest movements are making a serious impact on political and social issues. As you continue your research, I would focus on how online protest movements are effective. I think your reference to Benkler's work is a good step in that direction. I think you should also explore the notion of empowerment and whether online protest sites may foster personal empowerment in the same and different ways as more traditional protest movements. What mechanisms were the same and different with the SOPA, Susan Komen and Bank of America online movements?
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Looking forward to see the video's! I second the idea of Aditkowsky with regard to the views of actual participants and also if these differ from the views of the founders. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting line of research and something that I believe is highly relevant to the real world. I would be interested in learning about what has led to the success of certain online movements and what has led to the failure of others. If you were able to boil down a set of common characteristics to successful movements, that would be impressive.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it may be a good idea to also interview participants so that you can hear their perspective on participating as well as feeling like they are working towards effecting change. Good luck! [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 23:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jennifer, interviewing Jeremy Heimans and creating video clips is an exciting approach to gather your data. I also like your idea of doing case studies, but perhaps just picking one from one site? [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Just Johnny 
Prospectus: Assignmnt 2
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Johnny_Assignment2.doc The Social Network] 
Comments: A social network will be constructed for the course. Feel free to contact, as this may be a possible group project. [[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hi Just Johnny, although you mention social networks as your primary study for the final project, you address code, architecture, human behavior, interaction, norms inside it. I couldn’t grasp what was the main question you proposed, is it about the architecture of the social networks? If so, what is the discussion you’re presenting? Good luck on narrowing.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi @Just Johnny, I'm intrigued by your idea for creating a social network. You write that "code will be the law which dictates behavior within the site". I'd love to hear more about the underlying concept and specific vision for the site and how you plan to restrict choice and behavior through code. Also, what is the appeal of your site vs. the numerous other social networking sites and forums available to users? What is your value proposition? Looking forward to seeing how your site evolves over the rest of the semester. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 
You certainly are undertaking an ambitious project and I think your conclusions can be fascinating. I agree with a few points/questions made by Aditkowsky. From what I gather, you would like to create a Wikipedia-esque social network in which the content/services are generated by the users in a dynamic environment. You also mentioned that a screening process may be required to preserve the integrity of the site. Is this site intended to be a study or actually lead to a practical site that people would want to join? If so, I would imagine that some core service or services may need to be created to attract and motivate users to contribute to the site (i.e. Wikipedia and information). Good luck on this very ambitious concept.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As the others have mentioned, wow! Very difficult and ambitious project, I'll definitely be following it closely. As Jimmyh mentioned, are you shooting for a broader appeal or do you think you will need to tweak your concept to focus heavily on one area in order to carve out a niche for yourself? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Very ambitious and interesting indeed! It is however not really clear to me what it is what your aiming for directly, as the focus seems pretty broad. Very curious to see how this project will turn out. Good luck with narrowing it down.
[[User:MSS|MSS]] 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My comments are similiar to those above: first, very impresseive. Second, I had a tough time understanding the specific focus of the project. I think it sounds very interesting and I look forward to seeing how it all comes together.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You've laid out a monster of a project! Sounds fascinating. I'm also not sure what your focus/thesis is? Perhaps clarifying or narrowing your focus would be helpful. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 23:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Fabian Celis J 
Prospectus title: The Role of the Internet in Distance Education: The Open University Case 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fabian_Celis_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Hi Fabian, studying distance learning in the Internet age seems like a great topic - and very appropriate - for this class. One aspect that I'd like to hear more about is the creation of a classroom community despite geography. You might even consider using our class as a test case. For example, I attend class in person but for the past two weeks, I've been using Adobe Connect to participate in the robust discussion that's happening among students who are primarily not in the classroom. In a hybrid class like ours, how do you break down the wall that separates "distance" and "in-person" students to create a more cohesive community? What architecture, systems, and culture do you need to make it work? [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

I know you are attending this class (whether online or in person) but is there a chance you could also take the time to really dig into OU? It would be interesting to see the different ways people that use it view it as a resource; clearly everyone does not approach it with the same background, goals, or skills [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Distance education is a great aspect of how the internet has changed how we learn as individuals. I took my first live online course last semester using a program called Elluminate and I would check out how these types of interfaces can change the entire process of how classes (particularly discussion-based classes) are taught and how students can interact with other individuals from across the whole country and the entire world. A comparison of how unique methodologies specific to online education improves the entire classroom experience when compared to traditional in-classroom methods would be a good approach. Great subject and good luck with your work.

It appears you and Sab have similar topics. They both touch the distance education aspect. You should look at the two comments I've left Sab for additional feedback. I also have my cents to chime in regards to your paper. My first thought about open universities was to think of open communities on the Internet. So, wikipedia comes to mind. It would be interesting if there are any similarities or parallels in the development of an open university and an open encyclopedia. For one, both need dedicated users who are willing to operate, and care for their open platform. So my main suggestion here is to look at other open communities for similarities, and differences. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Great topic, very current. I agree with Jimmyh that a comparison to traditional class room education would be very interesting. Looking forward to see how this turns out. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fabian, it looks like we are studying similiar concepts. I am analyzing Khan Academy and its potential uses in developing nations for education. I would be interesting in sharing ideas as we continue with our research. Let me know if you would be interested.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: André Pase and Priscila Lollo 
Prospectus title: When two worlds collide, digital TV and online video in an age of transformation 
Research Focus: online video x tv 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assigment2_andrepase_priscilalollo.pdf Assignment 2] 
[[User:Andrepase|Andrepase]] 20:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 

Hi André and Priscila, is this the question you’re proposing: can the laws for the traditional medium change the development of new one? and are you going to work on this question through the Brazilian case?[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi André and Priscilla, I'm looking forward to learning more about how the Brazilian government and Brazilian companies and users are adapting to the changes in video delivery systems. I'm curious to hear more about the framework you plan to use for exploring the topic and I was also wondering if there is a specific community that you plan to follow. Since much of the class' focus seems to be on US and European examples, I think the Brazilian focus will be very interesting. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Agreed with Alexis, having this focus outside of the general scope of the class will be a great resource for all of us as far as a fresh perspective and (probably) some interesting takes on the same issues that we haven't considered! I'll be curious to see how the flow of information and law and etc. go back and forth in Brazil and this Brazilian online space. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am really fond of your dual country approach too! Maybe for a community you can use You Tube users vs a Brazilian equivalent (if any)? [[User:MSS|MSS]] 02:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic certainly has wide applications to how we view television in the modern age and legal discussions will certainly abound as a result. While I sense that you are examining the laws and market dynamics of the Brazilian model, I think you may want to hone in on a particular aspect of law as it relates to online television. Does a particular legal or governing aspect of the Brazilian model properly address piracy? How does the market shape the governance of online television? --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. A lot of media experts are trying to make sense of the convergence between digital TV and online video. Though really no one knows where it is headed. I personally recommend you look at some blog posts from Albert Wegner, a venture capitalist for Union Square Ventures. He thinks that television advertisements will get crushed almost exactly the same way print advertisements have suffered. Another thing I would consider looking into is the community building and social networking aspect behind digital video. For example, YouTube and Vimeo have rich interfaces where users can create their own television network, interact with their audience in real-time, and seamlessly collaborate with other users like them. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I love the comparative aspect of the proposal. I am very interested in learning how Brazil's legal structure might enable or limit the use of online video, especially realtive to US regulations.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Prospectus title: [http://pinterest.com/ Pinterest] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Spring2012-BerkmanAssignment2-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 

Hi Alexis, I saw the Pinterest page and found it very interesting! You pose some very interesting topics in your proposal: the role of women in…?, “off-brand” style of Pinterest, and Pinterest’s norms, but I encourage you to choose one of them because for me still wasn’t clear which is your main question. Good luck with your project.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexis,
I would like to offer two sources which may be useful to supplement your research. The first, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), are a list of 8 goals adopted by the United Nations in an effort to eradicate poverty by the year 2015. Several of the goals involve online access for poor countries, and one goal specifically addresses gender equality. [http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals Millennium Goals Main Site] And the second source, [http://www.tigweb.org Taking IT Global], is rich in content and will provide a wealth of information and resource material. Good luck with your project, it looks interesting and informative.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

@Louiscelli Thanks so much! I will check these out. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

That's fascinating that 80% of Pinterest users are women; do you think that this gender ratio will become more balanced as pinterest gains public fame/acceptance? I'd love to see how far you can push "off brand" uses of the site since I am always very interested in the (often incredibly clever or useful) ways in which sites end up providing something totally outside their original concept. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexis, great topic! As for sites for marginalized communities by and for (mostly) women, maybe "gardenmoms" is also an interesting community to explore. It is a parenting resource website, where parents (mostly moms) ask questions to one another and exchange information. I am a member myself and think it may be right up your alley. Good luck! [[User:MSS|MSS]] 03:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest does sound powerful from my limited familiarity with the website and I think your approach toward examining social norms should lead to interesting conclusions.What social norms you are focusing on? You mentioned the discrepancies between males and females in internet usage. Is this a particular norm that you will be focusing on? What feature are you examining in the "community versus collection of individuals" norm? Sounds like an interesting topic and good luck!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Alexis, sounds like a great project and already from your prospectus I have learned things that I wasn’t aware of. I agree with Louis on his suggestion of looking at the UN and their info. Good luck on your project! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is great that you are exploring Pinterest. It has gotten a ton of media publicity over the last few weeks. It is incredible that 80% of its users are female without ever openly saying it is a site for one gender or the other. What does this say about the community around Pinterest? The design, aesthetics, and layout? I ask myself if there will someday be the "Pinterest model" where a female specific website should look and function a certain way. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent topic and I would love to learn more about it as it relates closely to my work. I work with the MDGs and helping traditionally excluded populations (women and the poor) reach those goals. If you look into the literature on adolescent girls, secondary education and economic growth, you might find some interesting information on how this could be applied.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: James Harris 
Prospectus title: The Internet and “Bridging the Gap” in Politics 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_Assignment_2.doc Prospectus] 
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Hi James,
I love the concept, I’m just a little fuzzy on the thesis. Is the main focus going to concentrate on the elected-official/constituent relationship, or the paradigm shift of political campaign support? [[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi James, this is a great topic not only because of the timing but also because online campaigning and fundraising have had four years to evolve since the Dean and Obama campaigns in 2007/2008. One aspect you might decide to hone in on is the relationship of politicians to their constituents on their social networking sites. For example, Sarah Palin has been known to ban commenters who disagree with her viewpoint and Anthony Weiner used twitter to send provocative messages to his followers. Those are two high-profile ways of engaging or disengaging with followers but it might be interesting to look at a politician or two who actively foster an online community and respond thoughtfully and collaboratively to criticism vs. politicians who use social media as a one-way communications street. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Taking the idea of evolution of online fundraising and campaigning, and their effects, even farther, I was reading today that one of the Republican party leadership's major reasons for supporting SuperPACs (besides the obvious) is that they felt it evened the playing field against Obama moneywise. Even though he too obviously benefits from major donations to his SuperPACs, some Republican strategists explained that the gap between his ability to raise millions in small increments and the ability of any Repub. candidate to try and do the same was just far too large to overcome. So, Citizen's United is also in some ways related to this topic! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great topic! As for different marketing on FB, please see my comments on Blakes prospectus above. I also very interested to see how the quick spread of information influences the political process, as this is indeed a (relative) novum, especially in politics. [[User:MSS|MSS]] 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool topic. You may want to look into some of the background on the White House's social media initiative that was launched some time ago as well as some of the background on how members of the congress and senate have been using social media. I know alot of them have scrambled to set up social media teams to capitalize on the new media. It might be interesting to compare those who failed to use it wisely and those whe thrive with it. Some of those characteristics could be applied to campaign funding.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Prospectus Title: Social Structure's on the Writer's Forums of Cracked.com 
Research Focus: [http://www.cracked.com/ Cracked] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_2.pdf Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 
Hi Alex,
Is this line correct – “free to enter forum”? I don’t understand what that means. This looks like it will be an interesting project. I wonder if the editors will be surprised by your findings, or possibly take issue with your conclusion, depending on the outcome. I am really looking forward to reading your paper.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

@Louiscelli I was trying to express that it is a closed forum in that you need an invite to enter, but that the invite is freely given as long as you bother to ask for it; thus it is a "free to enter" forum but not a totally open one. I just phrased it terribly awkwardly. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, unsolicited suggestion here but it would be really funny if your final project was formatted like a Cracked article and you gave the class an opportunity to post comments before the final submission. Then you could pull together a final version and comment on the process as it relates back to Cracked. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, great topic, very curious to see what your outcomes will be, especially on the question who decides and (maybe even more) on what grounds and how static vs dynamics plays a role in that aspect. I second Alexis' idea of a Cracked article format. Good luck![[User:MSS|MSS]] 03:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alex, you have an interesting challenge with your empirical research project since the answers to your research questions will require you to be actively involved in the whole article submission process. Do you plan on approaching the website in a similar way that the class approached the Wikipedia assignment? Good luck!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, your project seems very fun and interesting. I wasn’t aware of cracked.com before reading your prospectus. I would definitely suggest looking at the 1st amendment of the constitution but because of the complexity of the subject you could also consider looking at specific Supreme Court decisions. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of cracked.com. I had not come across it before. I can't help it, but I agree with Aditkowsky's idea of submitting a cracked article format.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Jeff Kimble 
Prospectus title: Internet E-Commerce 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_2.doc] 
[[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Comments: 
Hi Jeff,
While I am sure there will be plenty of studies that address this, it will be nice to see the data synthesized, analyzed, and compacted into a short paper. You certainly will have lots of data to pour through. I will be particularly interested in some of your research as it will complement my project as well. Good luck, and if I run across any statistics that may be beneficial to your research, I’ll be sure to forward it along.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 

Be careful not to get too broad with your data collection and lose sight of a focus, but this sounds really neat. One interesting aspect might be considering age. Aditkowsky's comment about the difference between perception and reality with online markets and community rings true to me, and I think the fact that I'm 22 has a lot to do with that. My parents are 65 and no force on Earth could convince them to use an online market over a brick and mortar one if there was any conceivable chance that the good existed in both formats. Anyway, enjoy! I'm looking forward to reading your results. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, one thing you might consider exploring is how some people feel that e-commerce signals the end of a community even though many e-commerce sites actually promote a sense of community (e.g. etsy) and bring people together in spite of their geographical differences. This [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/12/independent_bookstores_vs_amazon_buying_books_online_is_better_for_authors_better_for_the_economy_and_better_for_you_.html Slate article] and the flurry of comments might be interesting for you to check out, although it doesn't focus on the online community angle. Cheers! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a great topic and I like your approach. From what I can tell, you are dealing with a variety of discussion topics. From a personal standpoint, I would recommend focusing on how online shopping has changed consumer behavior. This direct can provide great insight into how these online sites market themselves. Good topic and good luck! --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Louis Celli 
Prospectus title: e-commerce Taxation 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_2_CELLI_Research_Prospectus.doc The Future of e-commerce Taxation] 
Comments: 
Hi Louis, your project sounds really interesting - I'm looking forward to seeing how your research comes together and what your final recommendations are. The scope does seem a bit daunting, though. Perhaps you could focus in on the impact to sellers and buyers, for example, and on the changed transaction experience for users. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 23:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 

This sounds very ambitious and interesting, not to mention extremely relevant. The flat tax concept sounds workable and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing your results; I also selfishly hope you really delve into the legal/historical precedents for all of this quite a lot, since I love history and I feel like that's an area that could bear quite a lot of original thought. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Louis, I really like your topic a lot. I think it is great that you are actually doing research to reach an potential taxation solution/recommendation, which I assume will form the basis of your argument. Good work!--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Louis your project seems very interesting and it will be definitely exploring a very problematic world. I was just curious of one aspect, and I hope I didn’t get this wrong but you are trying to develop a tax system for all of the 50 states correct? And if so, my feelings are that it could be a bit complicated to have all 50 states agree on one tax rate. Do you think this will be a major issue or it can easily be overcome? Also, you probably have thought of this already since you mentioned constitutional aspects but I just thought of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 while first reading your prospectus. Anyways it sounds really interesting and I will have great pleasure in reading it once it will be completed. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Prospectus title: Terrorist Websites 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_2.doc Final Project Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Emanuele,
This is going to be an exciting paper indeed. This is a whopper and you might have trouble containing it to 10 pages. The First Amendment question might be a great place to start, then begin to wind in the Patriot act, while comparing it to the Espionage act of 1917. I can’t wait to read this paper, good luck![[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi Emanuele, very interesting topic. I'm trying to remember the show I listened to over the summer about infiltrating online forums that are used for recruiting new members. The story also touched on the use of video games for recruitment. I'll send the link once I remember what the show is.... Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 23:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I'd had this idea/had the sort of expertise and background you do to do it justice. I'm curious about how you'll make distinctions between "terrorist websites" that exist with the specific purpose of encouraging/recruiting to/supporting terrorism and simply anti-U.S. or very pro-militant Islam. The line is so blurry as to barely exist in most cases, which is obviously where the gov't runs into so much trouble in these types of efforts. Really looking forward to this one. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Emanuele, You are engaging into a very difficult and complex element of the internet. The American-born cleric who was recently killed in Yemen heavily relied on the internet to communicate with terrorists and many of the foiled terrorist attempts are linked to him. I think he would be a good starting point in your research. Good luck.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your precious advice and nice comments, I will definitely take into consideration your comments and I do realize that I have to narrow it down a bit. Thanks again![[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Julia Brav 
Prospectus title: [http://ask.metafilter.com/ Ask MetaFilter] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Jlynnping
 
Hi Julia, I really like how interactive your project is and how participating in the community is an important part of your research methodology. While moderation and desire for quality are two reasons why people might choose Ask MeFi over other sites, I'd be curious to hear more about how you find the quality and depth of responses on the site. For example, while other Q&A sites might be more of a free-for-all, are there times when quantity is of greater benefit than tightly proscribed quality? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 01:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm still not convinced that I'd be willing to pay the $5 when it's so easy to get info from other sources on the web, especially if you know how to look. I like how involved in one community your project is (mine is similar in that I'm really trying to get a feel for a specific site and a specific group). I'm interested to hear more about how their process works! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your paper sounds fairly broad at this point. I think it is interesting how the website moderators are actively involved with the content of the website and how they interact or dictate the social norms would be interesting. Good luck.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah Metafilter is interesting. As its competitors in Yahoo Answers, Google Answers, Facebook, and Quora. MetaFilter fascinates me, however, because it does have the same venture capital funding or silicon valley press like the competitors I've listed above. How has it managed to keep its community intact? What is driving the content and hits on Google? I'll be interested to see why and how the MetaFilter community is better structured than its rivals. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Prospectus title: Managing a Flexible Work/Life Balance: Legal Ramifications of Facebook 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:2012_02_-_SZakuto_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
Hi Samantha, this is a really interesting topic and there are numerous directions you could take it. If you're interested in honing in on the relationship between offline and online behavior and speech, I can send over a bunch of readings about student free speech in schools. Additionally, the boundary between online/in school is still hotly debated - the Supreme Court recently refused to hear appeals related to online attacks against school officials and students ([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/court-rejects-appeals-in-_0_n_1210399.html Huffington Post]). Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea that is sadly relevant to my life and I suspect many others in the class. I don't really like having a Facebook and I police it pretty carefully, but it's also the only way I have of contacting the vast majority of people who are my Facebook friends. I'm especially interested on the ways in which the location you access a site from (home vs. school or work) can impact how liable you are for punishment. That is a very interesting and muddy intersection of internet life and brick and mortar life. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is very interesting and pertinent to many issues we face today. I think that there is a battle between free speech and the effects of that free speech in the professional sphere. Even though, say, a school teacher does have the constitutional freedom to write some bigoted post on his or her Facebook page, the effects of that speech can be pronounced on that person's school. In a number of cases, teachers are either suspended or dismissed for Facebook comments in which there are two sides; those who say that he is simply exercising free speech and those who believe that no one of that opinion should be teaching children. Interesting topic.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Nicholas Thibodeau 
Prospectus title: Anonymous 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Thibodeau_Assignment_2.pdf] 
Comments: 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Nicholas, I'm looking forward to learning more about Anonymous in your final report. While this may lead you to murky legal waters, it would be cool if you could find a way to engage with the community in some way, or at least explore the process of how one becomes a part of Anonymous. Here's what came up first when I Googled "how do you join anonymous": [http://thehackernews.com/2011/03/how-to-join-anonymous-hacker-identity.html The Hacker News]. It's very Matrix-y. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 

Absolutely something I want to learn more about, looking forward to this. If you find a way to contact them (or research this otherwise but not sure how you would) I'm very curious about the number of people versus the actions performed by Anonymous. Is it a broad based group? Is it just a few key individuals who do the most high-profile things, simply supported by a large group that agrees with those actions? etc. Good luck finding them! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nicholas. Your topic sounds challenging since there doesn't seem to be a spokesman representing this movement or public statements. You will also be exploring how the "political protest" intersects with online technology. Are there other hacker groups like Anonymous? Are their tactics the same or different than Anonymous? Good luck with your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Name: Quynh Dang 
Prospectus title: [http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Agj1j2NWf7soiMwgqNKlvo6e5HNG;_ylv=3 Yahoo! Answers] 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Quynh_Dang_Prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Quynh, two things come to mind when reading your prospectus. 1) What's the value to you of having more points, particularly since there isn't a chat function and the users are anonymous? 2) You might want to connect with Julia Brav, who is evaluating Ask MetaFilter. Perhaps you could develop some sort of collaboration? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely talk to Julia Brav, you have an interesting opposite to her project's subject in some ways, especially with what behaviors are encouraged within the site. I assume that simply by getting so much information, sheer mass filters out the worst effects of a totally open system... but maybe not? The point system seems like an equal motivator to both useful and spammy and unhelpful activities, so I'll be curious what your conclusions are about how that plays out in actuality. Good luck with your research! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quynh. I think ''Yahoo! Answers'' is an interesting site that I have participated in. One of the problems with ''Yahoo! Answers'' (which I do not find with other sites such as Wikipedia) is that the validity of the answers provided is based on the number of answers submitted (as well as the rating system which you described). I have participated in Yahoo Answers in the past and often receive 2-3 answers at the most, which doesn't make me feel confident that I am getting the right answer. I think a fascinating point of focus is the "competitive" element of the scoring. Do gaining points and achieving different levels encourage better answers or cause competitive respondents to provide less accurate answers for the mere aspiration of gaining points? Good luck with your project. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Christopher Mejo 
Prospectus title: Building a New Online Community in Drupal 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Final_project_prospectus.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:chrism|chrism]] 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Christopher, I'm curious to hear more about how you plan to attract readers and community members to your site. What's the value proposition? Do people want financial and investment advice from their peers? Who is your target audience and what sites are they currently engaging with and how are they engaging with them? Developing your own site and attracting users in the next two months is quite an undertaking - maybe there's a way to explore the issues you raise in your prospectus by looking at existing forums for where people discuss finance? I can't say I go to this kind of site myself but [http://www.finance30.com/ Finance 3.0] came up during a Google search as did this article [http://www.accountingdegree.com/blog/2009/50-awesome-social-networks-for-finance-geeks/ 50 Awesome Social Networks for Finance Geeks]. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed @Aditkowsky, I'll be interested to see what approach you take towards building up site membership. You may want to find a more specific niche that you notice is going unfulfilled on some of the main financial websites. I'm also interested that you're intentionally using advertising from day 1- it'd be great if you could find some way to get feedback from site viewers on how that affects their feelings about the site as a whole. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your project sounds very challenging and will require a detailed understanding of programming which I assume you have. As I understand it, the niche of the site will be economics/investment. I would be interested in knowing whether governance techniques for other sites will be the same for an investment basics site. One can only assume that the nature of governance (and the personal information provided) will be different between a financial site and say a video game or online game site (perhaps not).--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Brendan Long 
Prospectus title: Question & Answer Website Services and the Impact of Social Media 
Prospectus:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Final_Project_Prospectus_-_Long%2C_Brendan.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 
Hi Brendan,
Cool idea. I’m not on facebook, so I wasn’t aware that there was a separate section for answer seekers. I use dedicated Q & A sites quite a bit. The one’s that make me register before looking at them, I usually pass by. Mostly, I use sites dedicated to Android programming, other IT community sites, specific auto repair questions, and one legal questions site. On two occasions, I paid a small fee for “good” answers on JustAnswers.com.
The sites I have found to be credible and useful are; avvo (A V V O - looks like a W when they are close together).com for legal questions, JustAnswer.com (this is the site where I agreed to “donate” a token fee for a correct answer), forum.xda-developers.com for some of my Android questions, liliputing.com (again for Android), and Cyanogenmod.com (yep, again for Android stuff).
It’s been my experience that experts tend to collect in likeminded online communities. I’m not sure what social network sites offer, but I think that intrinsically technical question seekers might need to go outside of the general social network platform in search of community sites dedicated to the specific topic. It will be a really interesting study – I’m looking forward to seeing your results. Best of luck. [[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 
Hi Brendan, Julia Brav and Quynh Dang are also looking at aspects of Q&A sites - it might be fun to try to find a way to work with them. In terms of your prospectus, I'm most intrigued by how successful Q&A is on social networking sites. What are the benefits and challenges? And how much is success dependent on your personal ability to engage your friends/contacts/followers vs. a larger community's engagement with a dedicated Q&A site? [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems one like one major thing that the Q and A sites have going for them is that they've managed to entrench themselves in certain communities already; fans of certain types of video games know the best sites, engineers know the best sites for that, etc. It'll be interesting to see what you find with social media sites and how they are going to try and balance their broad appeal with an attempt to create very specifically useful Q and A sections. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So your main goal is to examine how social media can influence the popularity (and authenticity) of Q & A sites? I would imagine that social media can be viewed as a means for advertising or popularizing Q & A sites. Would your focus be on how users of a Q & A site may choose to popularize that site through their Facebook or twitter accounts? One interesting point may be to examine the behavior of users who choose to popularize Q & A sites through social media. Do they feel that a certain answer is significant that everyone should know? Is a certain type of answer or topic the reason why they would likely integrate social media? --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Hope Solomon 
Prospectus title: Communicating with Constituents through Twitter 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_2_Hope_Solomon.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Hds5|Hds5]] 14:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Hope, this is a great topic and I look forward to following your research for the rest of the semester. It might be helpful to identify different kinds of twitter "engagement" and make an attempt at quantifying them. For example, how many @ replies are there vs. general status updates? Is there some way to evaluate the "quality" of the tweets? Do the politicians make use of hashtags and, if so, to what effect? It might also be interesting to note the number of followers at the start and end of the project. And finally, by the end of the project, do you have any best practices for politicians for how to engage their community and get (or at least seem like you're getting) things done? Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great idea- how will you deal with the fact that many politicians Twitter feeds are at least partially actually managed by a series of pr experts/interns who follow set instructions for the material they post? I obviously don't know if this is true for the specific ones you mentioned, but it would be an interesting extra layer where the format of the site actually creates a false sense of closeness for subscribers. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great topic!Is Twitter more a tool for the politicians to advertise themselves rather than an interactive tool between constituent and politician? Is there solid evidence that Twitter really has initiated change (constituent protest on Twitter leads to reforms by politician)? I look forward to reading your paper. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I can say from experience, Twitter has been the most beneficial platform to me. I have made invaluable connections, found work, and interacted with some interesting people. I've often thought about Twitter's community and communication guidelines. Why are they so effective? What drives the tweet traffic on Twitter? I concluded that it is powerful and effective because it is completely open. There are no walls to stop anyone from interacting or sharing information with anyone else. It is the first entirely open communication platform. I am writing my prospectus on StockTwits, which is an app similar to Twitter. We should talk if you would like to field an interesting discussion. [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Yerzhan Temirbulatov 
Prospectus title: Endless war on piracy 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:YerzhanTemirbulatov_EndlessWarOnPiracy.doc Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Yerzhan, I'm very interested in the discussion of Russian torrent sites, particularly since so much of the class discussion is geared toward the US. I'd love to see a comparison between a site like Megaupload and the leading Russian torrent sites, and I'd also love to learn more about emergence of Tribler and its potential impact on file sharing. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic certainly is relevant to the course discussion. I am not sure if it will be too challenging to analyze the effects of the megaupload closure since the arrests occurred not too long ago (maybe I'm underestimating the dynamic quality of the internet). Good luck with your work. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting extension of the discussions we've had in class, I'll be interested to see how good the statistics you can find are. Is this the sort of thing where the given statistics are totally trustworthy? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Tara Baechel 
Prospectus title: The Internet, Adoption and the Privacy of Minors 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Baechel_Assignment_2.pdf Prospectus] 
Comments: 
[[User:TBaechel]] 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Tara, I think you raise really interesting questions about whether the release of private information online helps or hinders adoption agencies' marketing efforts. I might suggest that instead using fundraising websites set up by parents as a complement to your main research topic, you could look to forums/discussion boards that include potential and current adoptive parents. What can you learn about their preferences from monitoring those communities? What might adoption agencies learn that could affect the way they communicate with parents pursuing adoption? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is powerful. My brother adopted two children many years ago and he never had this wealth of information on perspective children. I think that moral issues may arise (as you mentioned) regarding the type and amount of information released concerning these children, both in the adoption process and many years later when these children are part of the internet public record. Hopefully you will be able to find more focus as you continue your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, and the point about this information coming back to haunt the children later in their life is a very strong one that hadn't occurred to me. Do you think that the lack of information, while better for the children, may actually deter potential parents to some degree? I know adoption is something that people generally are very committed to if they are considering it, but would a lack of information actually hinder the ability of some sites/groups to draw in possible adoptive parents? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tara, from your prospectus, your project seems very interesting but also very difficult. I have some knowledge even though limited of the minors world and legal issues. I worked in the DA’s Office Domestic Violence Unit and I personally encountered many problems regarding information and minors. Because of this, I am very eager to read your final project once it is completed. Good luck! [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Manuel Valerio 
Prospectus title: Internet, fame and speed to Market 
Prospectus: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:MPValerio_Assignment-2_Internet_Fame.pdf] 
Comments: 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Manuel, in addition to the ideas you raise in your prospectus, I'd be interested in hear more about the specific role of an online community (or communities) in propelling a person or product to prominence. What quality of the community and what actions taken by the users contributed to the outcome? Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manuel, I did not really get your research question. What answer are you planning to give? How do you plan to sue Lessig framework. I am unsure about the claim that it is really new and the role of internet. I will maybe also see the connection with other media such as tv shows. Best of luck!!!--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 15:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your topic is interesting and I too have wondered how the internet has sped up fame for a particular star. You seem to be focusing on blogging, which may pose complications since there are many other online avenues that can contribute to the rise of a popular musician or actor. To separate blogs from youtube, review sites and music sites may be challenging. Are you focusing on the collective blogsphere of amateur individuals, or professional blogs written by well-known bloggers?--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One interesting aspect of this is whether the "fame" produced by an internet-fueled sudden rise to stardom is as permanent as fame that came through more traditional channels would be. Look at the Lana Del Rey pushback with her terrible performance on SNL; since then she has done much better on Letterman, but her album has been regarded critically as pretty average, and that sudden internet fame may end up disappearing as quickly as it came. Blogs are very focused in the moment, especially pop-culture ones. Is that really conducive to creating long-lasting success? I'm really looking forward to reading this one. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Marjolein Siegenthaler 
Prospectus name: Airbnb.com 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_2_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc 
Comments: [[User:MSS|MSS]] 22:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Marjolein, I think looking at the rules and norms for airbnb is a great topic. You might consider looking at [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing.org] as a point of comparison since the culture explicitly values the connection between hosts and guests. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marjolein, I am personally interested in your subject because few days ago a friend of mine told me to put my vocational house on it. Regarding, your question, I will also check what kind of policy do airbnb put in place to refrain such behavior, like credit card number given to the police, check of the identity, etc? And how does this comply with the protection of privacy? I like the idea of Adi to compare policy with other similar websites. Best of luck.--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great research questions, this seems like a nightmare of potential legal problems that could be tied up across different national systems. What if they went back to their country before you realized they damaged your home? How do you even get at them? But at the same time, it seems like the site would be wise to totally protect itself from any liability, and function only as an intermediary, with no guarantee. If they could be found responsible for damages they'd be doomed, and very open to possible scamming too. Neat project. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marjolein,
I thought I'd send you a link to coverage on AirBNB from Gawker (http://gawker.com/airbnb/), stemming from the singular incident described in your prospectus. These reports have an overwhelming negative (and arguably libelous) slant (but that's Gawker for you). I hope that these might be useful in your investigation.[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marjolein, Your topic certainly touches upon some general legal arguments that may apply to any media outlet in which there is a transaction of some sort. If you look at newspapers that have “want ads” and postings, an argument could be made that the newspaper is in some way liable since there was a payment for the want ad to be published. Your questions on how the site regulates the type of information provided, and whether that regulation diminishes or increases the chances that arrangements not working out, should lead to interesting avenues of thought. I would consider examining policies on two different fronts; how the regulation of information attracts users, and how the regulation of information increases the likelihood of transactions working out.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In terms of community devlopment, AirBnb is an interesting case. Like the people mentioned above, a single incident where a AirBnb user trashes another AirBnb user's apartment can break the entire community. What is worth looking into here is the fragility behind the AirBnb community. In addition, what are the steps AirBnb is taking to support that fragility? I'm also curious to hear what your opinion is on AirBnb and hotels. Would you rather use AirBnb or a hotel? Why? What is AirBnb doing with its community and users that is worse or better than a hotel? [[User:Scheplick|Scheplick]] 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Gregorian Hawke 
Prospectus name: twentymine.com 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Talk_to_Strangers_v1.0.odt 
Comments: 
Hi Gregorian, I love your Minecraft story and I think it would be very interesting to focus in on this community. Maybe you could look specifically at your own relationship with the members of your sub-community and the ways in which you built trust through gaming together. Have fun! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregor, Your idea and the way you connect the “small talk” and the trust that can come up from it is interesting. Some features of the some community seem to increase the trust between the users. I will be very interested in the result of your study. And if, except yourself, other users have similar experiences to share. I never did! Good luck
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Gregorian, I think the idea of looking at the internet as a forum for non-monetary, trust-based material exchanges is a good one. It would be great if there was one community you could look at where those exchanges have succeeded and failed, or where there are formal or informal criteria for when a level of trust has been established to allow a transaction to take place. [[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 19:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great anecdote from Minecraft! You may want to come up with a very simple survey to measure "trust," ie. a number scale from 1 to 10 and they rate how much they would trust a stranger in real life, in Minecraft, on a gaming forum, etc. Might help you to quantify answers a little better. I know this will be a fun one to read! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the psychological/behavioral aspect of your topic. I think that internet users in online communities may develop a sense of trust in much the same way that all of us do in our everyday lives; we develop trust by interacting with someone continuously. However I think that trust in today’s digital age is weighed against the potential misuses of that trust (i.e. fraud, identity theft). Of course trust is also built on common interests and can be augmented by exchanging advice that leads to a more rewarding product or discussion. Your topic is a bit broad but I think you can find some interesting conclusions about trust and how the internet has shaped that trust.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: Mike Brant 
Prospectus Title: Children for Peace/Youth for Peace Online Community 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Children_for_Peace-Youth_for_Peace_Online_Community_-Mike_Brant.doc 
[[User:Mike|Mike]] 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 
Hi Mike, you raise some interesting points in your prospectus. I wonder about some of the challenges of using an online platform for engagement with kids (at least in the US, there are [http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm lots of rules] governing communications to children under the age of 13) and about how you might connect with kids/youth who have limited or no access to the Internet. Perhaps your research will help address some of those issues. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike, if I have well understood your objective is to create a community of children willing peace and acting in different way for it. Your research question is about the online norms to regulate this community? As a consequence, I would rather stick on this and see the censorship issues and also investigate on how to deal with kids rather than go to see the success of peace teaching in the world which is a totally different and hard subject? Best of luck!! By the way, no website yet about this project?--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike, if there is another website you know of that is focused on fostering international dialogue amongst youth, you might want to just focus on that one community? [[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 19:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that a site that children could actually access and participate in would need to have stronger regulation than just "golden rule" and the basic Wikipedia sort of social contract, as successful as it has been. This may be my bit more pessimistic view of human nature online, but I think that it is hard to market a site related to youth and children if they can't participate much on it, and hard to market a site children can participate in without pretty clear and strong protections for them... I'll be interested to see what you conclude. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

While I consider your goal of a peace-oriented website to be a valiant effort, I am not sure if you can regulate “negative” material that almost certainly will abound if users are left to contribute to the materials, which in turn could lead to political problems. I am just not sure how you could regulate the recognition of problems if the goal of the website is to find a peaceful solution to those problems (perhaps it is just the political scientist in me). UNCESCO, is, if I’m not mistaken, a United Nations organization, and therefore likely works with the various other UN groups on their specific goals. You are dealing with an interesting political issue as it relates to online forums and good luck with your research. --[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 
Name: David Taber 
Prospectus: Coffee Shop vs. Grocery Store: Where and how local news is discussed on the web
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:David_Taber_prospectus_E-120.odt] 
Comments 
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 
I could have sworn I uploaded this on Tuesday, but it appears I forgot to hit submit. Sorry! 
Hi David, I really like your concept and I think it also touches on the issue of fair use we read about this week. It might also be interesting to note how much of the original article is reposted and how much additional commentary Universal Hub makes on the article. I've found that commentors can often be negligent when it comes to reading the original source so you might want to take that into consideration when evaluating the differences in comments. Good luck! [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear David, I thing you have found there a real way to compare 2 comparable materials and will have great and maybe unexpected results. What will be interesting is if you find comments from a common commentator to see the difference in the speech depending on the website. I would also link your comparison to the difference in the tons adopted by both websites that can influence the content of the comments left. Best of luck!
--[[User:Sab|Sab]] 14:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What a great way to be able to study the effect of the form information is presented in, nice idea. My instinct is that certain people will heavily trust one or the other more, even if the same info is given in both. I'm also interested in how certain info (say a very serious and depressing story) would be altered in order to fit into both? How does that work, if a particular story doesn't really feel natural to appear on the Hub site? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 

 
Name: Carl Fleming 
Prospectus Title: Khan Academy 
Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fleming_Assignment_2.doc 
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments 
I am very amazed to discover your prospectus as it is very similar to mine. Regarding your first question I am wondering if the success of the Academy lies on the architecture, your answer will be very interesting to me, or if it lies on the way Kahn taught the subject. My feeling is that the second option is the right one. As for your second question, this article and especially the comments associated to it can help you to get some answer. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_khan/all/1
As for me, Kahn Academy is a wonderful free supplement to traditional offline education but does not reach the objective targeted. This is, as Gates says, a first step to the Revolution.
I like your research questions but I am losing some logical links with the methodology used. Why not focusing on the use of the Academy in the traditional education space in California, and check the result of the evaluation, if any, on “impoverished” students.
Same for “Critique of the Academy”, I do not see the link. I would rather focus on the constructivism, the interactivity and the quality of the teaching (cf. the article).
 --[[User:Sab|Sab]] 13:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question, I'm glad so many people are focusing on education from a variety of different angles. I feel like some very relevant conclusions could be drawn from compiling the 5 or so different reports that look at the intersections of internet and education. Good luck! [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carl,
I was really excited to see that you're focusing on Khan Academy (I learned about it only recently, and I've since become semi-addicted to doing practice questions). I think a comparative study of the Academy's architecture vs. that of traditional education methods could yield very interesting results. I'd also be curious to hear your thoughts on user-coaches (that is, how any user can theoretically provide coaching in addition to Sal Khan's coaching videos), and how you think that adds or detracts (or both) from the Academy's overarching mission.[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright in Cyberspace

2012-02-28T20:56:44Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''February 28'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

<onlyinclude>
== Required Readings ==

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1, "Copyright Basics" (.pdf)]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 (“Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use”)]
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) (“Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users”)]
* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, Remix, Bloombsbury Academic (2008) (CC BY-NC 3.0), Ch. 1, "Introduction"]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html Miguel Helft, "Judge Sides with Google in Viacom Video Suit," NYTimes.com (June 23, 2010)]
* [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/12/copyright-infringement-defendants-turn-the-table-on-righthaven335.html Jeffrey D. Neuburger, "Copyright Infringement Defendants Turn the Table on Righthaven," Mediashift (December 1, 2011)]
* [http://www.boston.com/ae/specials/culturedesk/2010/11/cooks_source_probably_shutting.html Steve Greenlee, "Cooks Source probably shutting down," Boston Globe CultureDesk (November 17, 2010)]
* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, "A Close Look at SOPA," The Future of the Internet Blog (December 2, 2011)]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=2 Cary Sherman, "What Wikipedia Won't Tell You," NY Times (February 7, 2012)]
* [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/01453517694/riaa-totally-out-touch-lashes-out-google-wikipedia-everyone-who-protested-sopapipa.shtml Mike Masnick, "RIAA Totally Out of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA," TechDirt (February 8, 2012)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-congress-can-take-protect-americas-intellectual-property The White House Blog: Concrete Steps Congress Can Take to Protect America's Intellectual Property]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

Wanted to share this informative article from Life Hacker [http://lifehacker.com/5888488/how-youre-breaking-the-law-every-day-and-what-you-can-do-about-it?utm_source=Lifehacker+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e57b84fd87-UA-142218-1&utm_medium=email "How You’re Breaking the Law Every Day (and What You Can Do About It)"] that gives a general overview of copyright law, how to protect yourself, (with an illustration of "derivative works" featuring Hitler) & talks about Lessig's bit on Breitz, Girl Talk, and "quoting."
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 18:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to share an interesting post from The Wall Street Journal Law Blog on trademark infringement and online shaming: [http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/02/23/shame-on-you-trademark-holders/ Shame on You, Trademark Holders] 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 14:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Something I found interesting and didn’t know about regarding the copyright topic is that registration is not a requirement for protection. Although registration gives some advantages, especially when claiming copyright, it’s really worth to note that copyright is secured automatically when the work is created. I’d like also to discuss about a specific point of the readings: The role the copyright plays in the education system. This is because in the 17 USC 107 it says that it’s not an infringement of copyright when a work is reproduced for some purposes, including education. My concern here is how can an author claim copyright when students from an educational institution are making copies of his or her material if they argue that the purpose is educational? Although one of the conditions of fair use of the work is the portion used in relation to the whole work, I personally think this wouldn’t be sufficient for the author to prove infringement and protect his or her work. [[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 20:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A relevant article for this week is one about [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?pagewanted=2 domain name seizures]. Also, muckrock.com filed a FOIA request on behalf of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz Aaron Swartz] (founder of Demand Progress, or maybe better known for his break in to JSTOR @ MIT and subsequent arrest a couple years ago) with the DHS requesting [http://www.muckrock.com/foi/view/united-states-of-america/domain-name-seizures/329/ records related to domain name seizures of many websites]. I am kind of blown away by this practice and fairly certain it would have happened more frequently if SOPA had been passed.

Now, turning my attention to this week's readings. Is it just me, or does Cary Sherman and his misinformation/twisted view of reality remind anyone else of Fox news? Anyways, the Intro to Lessig's "Remix" touched on a few (well, a lot) things that I found very interesting. I liked his exploration of creativity and the description of music as more interactive. Music is very much about its audience, and how that audience interprets and interacts with said music. To me, this helps to show how the current copyright statute is archaic in a sense. The bit about Breitz's issues with the Lennon installment shed light on the true (and many times ugly) face of copyright holders and the entertainment industry. Unfortunately, it does seem to be the case that the "collateral damage" in these instances is creativity, as Lessig wrote. Breitzs' installments (which I saw in Berlin) were wonderful, and I'm surprised Ono didn't respond like Marley's widow, Rita. At least Breitz persevered and touched the lives of the fans and exhibit viewers.

I very much enjoyed the article that responded to Sherman's op ed piece. The government and the entertainment industry have not been able to keep up with the net. The net is too transformative for bureaucracy and old fashioned "cronyism." Even the VCR was labeled "pirate technology" (from "Remix") at one point. I think it will take awhile for the laws, policies, and the entertainment industry to catch up with the generativity of the net. Heck, it took America awhile to come to terms with Elvis' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelvic_thrust pelvic thrust]. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 23:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

February 28: Copyright in Cyberspace
[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been waiting for the right time to share this link, I think this is it. Whenever TPB (The pirate bay) gets send a cease and desist letter they post it and their (often funny) response here [http://thepiratebay.se/legal]. (Some replies contain NSFW language). 
[[User:Gregor|Gregor]] 14:21, 27 Febuary 2012 (UTC)

I have been particularly sensitive of copyright laws since I am interested in music recording and video. Lawrence Lessig’s article ''Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy'' does bring up an important point; do companies really stand to lose profits by targeting artists who may use short clips of their copyrighted material or are these cases mostly based on ideology and principle with little concern for lost profits? In the case of Stephanie Lenz and the Youtube video of her child dancing to Prince, clearly Lessig is correct in pointing out that the inclusion of Prince music in the video would not cut into the album sales. The clip was short and the sound quality was poor. In fact, popularizing the clip through the video could only broaden interest in Prince’s music and may lead to additional sales.

In the case of Gregg Gillis who remixed existing clips, I think his response to the copyright infringement law suit was apt; “This wasn’t something like a bootlegging case.” While Gillis’s music involves hundreds of different clips and I can only assume that no one single clip defines an entire song, certain copyright infringement cases are trickier. For example, rapper Vanilla Ice’s hit song ''Ice Ice Baby'' clearly took the entire bass line of the Queen song “Under Pressure” and used the clip repeatedly throughout the song. While Vanilla Ice never credited Queen, he would ultimately be forced to pay royalties. Therefore it may be a little more nuanced between Gillis’s case where the sum of the clips is more important than any one clip and Vanilla Ice’s situation where a single clip makes up the entire song.
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I found this week’s articles very interesting. Copyright has always been an interesting subject to me and I have found myself once doing extensive research on it and involving my lawyers as well for a specific case which I thought to be copyright infringement. Right out of college I found a temporary job working in a museum in Rome, Italy. In the meantime a photographic contest ended with a winning picture of an area of the Museum which had me at the center of it walking away from the photographer with no idea that I was in it. At first when I found out I thought it was simply funny but then the Museum started using that picture for numerous publications and advertising it in subway stations and around the city. Everyone knew it was me and all my friends recognized me; the Museum director even complimented me but when I talked to my lawyers to find out whether or not it was an infringement of copyright laws, I was told that it was indeed but unfortunately since my head was turned it wasn’t that easy to determine whether or not the subject in the picture was actually me. I also enjoyed Lessig’s article especially the sections concerning John Lennon since I am also a big fan and the first story about the 18 month old child dancing to Prince. In the article it said that the child was recorded for about 29 seconds and I must say that regardless of the other possible issues concerning the case, I have listened hundreds of times to songs for free on websites like amazon.com which reproduce quotes or samples for 30 seconds and allow you to listen to all of their repertoire for that time as many times as one wants. For what concerns Helft’s article on Google’s victory, I don’t know if I really agree with it and the Safe Harbor clause in general. It was always said that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” so why would someone be protected for not controlling what is infringing the law and what isn’t on their own website? I still have trouble understanding this decision. About the Cooks Source article instead, I think that if someone published their story online, then they would at least have to be notified if someone would like to use it for their own purpose. In the articles talking about SOPA and PIPA and the misleading and biased information found on Wikipedia I thought a lot about our first assignment and how Wikipedia does have rules but as we can see once again, many users do not respect them and then cause public disputes. Once again, I think that Wikipedia should find a way to better enforce their rules and take care of any articles which infringe their policies somehow. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 18:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"That’s partly because “old media” draws a line between “news” and “editorial.” Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact. " -Cary H. Sherman.

That quote felt pretty representative to me of how intentionally blind Sherman seemed to be making himself in that NYTimes op-ed. Has he seen Fox News or MSNBC? It's difficult to find a headline or story on either that isn't skewed pretty heavily towards that networks opinion on the political issues of the day. Ditto Wall Street Journal (spent at least 2 weeks pretending the Murdoch phone tapping case didn't exist) and many many other newspapers. The response article did a great job responding to his claims and bringing up the point that it is NOT "democracy" to have major industries create, fund, and often even write major bills that lawmakers then pass out of fear of angering major powers. It isn't necessarily good that a massive internet spasm of anger can have the same sort of effect, but at least it proved it can sometimes counter the more traditional abuses of power and influence. Until we arrive at independent and thoughtful politicians who aren't beholden to fundraising reality (here's my plug for election reform, national popular vote, and capped public campaign funding) the internet is a valuable resource for leveling the playing field.

One thread through a lot of the articles was the way that this new frontier sometimes flip-flops or skews the traditional power dynamics. In one article we saw a big company bullying individual bloggers for profit, but in another we saw Google and Youtube triumphing over Viacom in a very similar way that also benefited the little people of the internet... not least the average users who so constantly depend on Youtube for the service it has come to dominate. In other cases, Google is the giant invading our privacy, and at other times an individual, a blogger or a group actually spend their whole time online spreading lies or spewing hatred, or even just writing viruses to ruin everyone else's day. Depending on the issue, and the exact circumstances, it can be hard to see who is David and who Goliath... and who we should be rooting for. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

--I agree with AlexLE that it is sometimes difficult to know who to root for. It seems to be more clearly divided right now between old media and new media, but I think that will change in upcoming years with some of the new media becoming more "evil." What do you guys think about Google's massive bundling of products/services and new service terms? Are they the next "evil?" A throwback to our first class meeting: [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/french-regulator-warns-google-privacy-policy-15807618#.T00d7coZ8nU Google's new privacy policy may violate EU rules] [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright, intended to protect creative work by giving authors or creators exclusive rights, in some cases hinders creativity. Well put by Lessig, obtaining legal permission is a time consuming process, which impedes collaboration and generation of new ideas. I feel that copyright should protect from stealing, such as direct piracy of music and sharing those files with others. However, I agree with the idea that fair use should be “transformative,” taking an original work and adding new ideas and opinions to it. The use of original work as the “raw material” promotes creativity, as in Girl Talk’s remixes and SilviaO’s voice. Another example is by Neuburger, who believes that inventing a Barbie doll requires more creative work than editorial opinions, and posting of such on a website increases “discussion and exploration.” [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lessig really laid out a great example of the ridiculous extremes a money-driven corporation will go to, in order to protect their “bottom line” of profit. It evades common sense, as he made clear by his pointing to the fact that the lawyer fees incurred in warning the mother who shared the video far excelled any possible damages or loss of profit she could have caused. The example of Beitz and the reactions of different copyright holders really shines the light again on human nature. Some people just care about business, seeming to have little concern for art, creativity, or what the artist probably really cared about in the first place, while others are just more human, as could be seen in the difference between Yoko Ono and Rita Marley. Obviously new possibilities for creativity, free from the constraints of the traditional controlling powers, is considered an exciting new horizon by some, and a menace by those who have controlled the entertainment industry until now. It seems to me that trying to stop this new movement is like trying to stop the rain. You might stop a few drops only, and anyway, the rain is beneficial.
I was glad that Google stood up to Viacom. I do agree that copyrights have their place, and that the concept of asking someone permission to use their material is right, but the voice that Youtube and other such media provides for individuals to express themselves, is also an important new element in society, and should be protected. There must be a balance. If control is too extreme, we lose elements of freedom of speech.
About the SOPA/PIPA debate, it does seem apparent to me that those who have been on top, making the money, want to stay there, and as often happens, have ways to manipulate the lawmakers to favor them. I find it hard to trust someone like Cary Sherman, who is good with words, but does not seem to tell the whole story or distorts it to the public. Of course there should be reasonable copyright protection for artists and intellectual property owners, but looking at those laws and Jonathan Zittrain’s comments on them, it seems that the intention of those laws is not to protect anyone, but to control everyone.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 17:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I too enjoyed the article responding to Sherman's piece. I recently came back from a conference on leadership and innovation where nearly everyone in the audience was in agreement that government has been unable to keep up with not only the generativity of the internet, but also the generativity of entrepreneurship as a whole. There was a large cry for government to step up to the plate and get ahead of the curve in order to create structures and frameworks within which the internet and entrepreneurs can grow. At present, we either lack structures, have antiquated structures or have created forwardlooking structures that undercut much of what innovators are trying to accomplsih. This must be addressed before larger issues and collapses occur.
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 18:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 
Prior to this week's readings, I assumed that the blogging convention of excerpting and linking to an original source was not only the polite and proper behavior but that it was also legal. While the Righthaven example clarifies that "fair use is a fact-sensitive evaluation that can't readily be made on a class-wide basis", it doesn't establish that excerpting and linking is protected as fair use. I also assumed that mash-ups of clips, music, etc were also generally protected but the U.S. Code on the "Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use" does not describe these scenarios. I appreciated Professor Tim Wu's comment that "it is time to recognize a simpler principle for fair use: work that adds to the value of the original, as opposed to substituting for the original, is fair use" because mash-ups and reappropriation do result in new work with new meaning and, as Lessig writes, we need to consider "the harm to a generation from rendering criminal what comes naturally to them". [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just like everyone else here, I too really enjoyed Masnick’s article, which criticized Sherman’s opinion of the public response to PIPA and SOPA. I think everyone agrees with Masnick’s opinion that the industries are frugally trying to recover themselves by hiding behind legislation that infringes upon the rights of neutral parties. I wish he would have spoken more about Section 230, and how internet providers are protected by it, as well as the Limitation of Liability that we also read. These to contradictory laws provide more fodder for opponents to the two bills. But I think Zittrain gave the best analysis of SOPA and PIPA, in that they hold the internet content providers liable in direct contrast to Section 230. Thus the backlash to these bills centers around not copyright, but rather the right to free speech of a neutral party who happens to be an intermediary. While Section 230 gives content providers greater freedom than any other form of press, I think content providers still see themselves as a form of press (which is arguably true), and thus these bills are a direct infringement on First Amendment rights.

Additionally, Masnick had another article on the site in which he explores the idea that the industries’ business model is outdated. His analogy was that of horse carriages versus cars. Carriage manufacturers though they were in the horse carriage business rather than personal transportation business, thus their surprise when carriage sales fell off with the advent of cars. Similarly, the MPAA and RIAA are not in the making film/music business, but rather the delivery business, being theaters, cds, and digital downloads; the general gist is the easy and manner of conveyance of the film or music (including concerts). Masnick points to their business model as being outdated. He indicates that rather than continue to promote theaters, radio and cds, they should adapt to the emerging new digital medium and conveyance through the internet, just as they did when tapes and vhs came out.[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 19:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mashnick's article was especially compelling and further evidence to his point could be substantiated from what Renee Marie Jones said in the response section to Zittrain's article: "And the Swiss government just finished a study that shows that unauthorized downloading for private use costs the media industry exactly nothing, and that the downloaders typically spend more real money on media products than the general public. So, in Switzerland, at least, acts that the RIAA, MPAA and others classify as “stealing” will remain EXPLICITLY LEGAL. The Swiss are telling the media companies that they should embrace the new technologies and accept them as an opportunity. In the US we are trying to stamp out the new technologies so the media companies can go back to selling vinyl records and movie tickets without competition." [[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 20:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Peer Production and Collaboration

2012-02-21T22:33:51Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''February 21'''

The free software movement is one example of a trend towards distributed volunteer networks of individuals collaborating on collective projects that were formerly the domain of the for-profit private sector. In this session, we explore how far such peer production can go in redefining the economic and social structures of modern society.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/ISFebruary21.pdf Download this week's slides (PDF)]'''

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|Assignment 2]] due

==Readings==

<onlyinclude>
* Yochai Benkler, [http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/394/ News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (watch from 8:32 to 26:07)
* Joseph Reagle, [http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/reagle-nrhm-special-collab-norms.html ”Be Nice”: Wikipedia Norms for Supportive Communication]

== Additional Resources==
Joseph Reagle's book: [http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/ Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia]

The following audio streams from NPR may be interesting:
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4986453 Wikipedia, Open Source and the Future of the Web]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6051103 Wikipedia Wins Users and Critics by Jenny Lawton]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4506421 Wikipedia's Growth Comes with Concerns by Laura Sydell]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

February 21: Peer Production and Collaboration

I like the Yocha's Idea that "what we see now is the emergence of social sharing and exchange as a major additional modality of production." He says this has created new competition, like the PSP to the recording industry, the Free Open Source Software to Microsoft, Wikipedia to Grollier and Encarta, and Skype to Telecomms. I like these new opportunities that have been arising and personally think they are unstopable. As he said, at the beginning nobody would have thought that an the collaboration of many users could create an encyclopedia, but now we have Wikipedia as another source of information, differing from Britannica in scope but with the same aims, to spread knowledge. Indeed, Wikipedia is a source of controversy itself, but opinions are diverse and personally i liked the one in the NPR program from a participant who said that he relies on Wikipedia more than another encyclopedia because more people participate in the building of the articles.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 22:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it was rather interesting how Uricchio described Benkler and Jenkins as having reciprocity in that they come from two different directions (culturally or socially), but occupy the same terrain. Can't wait to hear more in class. [[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 21:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great discussion with Yochai Benkler on economics of social production and politics. The Diebold example is a perfect indication of showing how this system of the “structured web” is effective in "offering visibility to more people" and easier for each "individual and small group to speak and be heard." Has anyone by chance seen the HBO documentary, ''Hacking Democracy''? If not, check it out ([[http://www.wanttoknow.info/electionsvideodocumentary]]), which gives a more in depth and detailed insight into the investigation Bev Harris and her associate Kathleen Wynne (Black Box Voting, Inc.) did to expose security weaknesses in electronic voting systems. Also demonstrates the "battle with institutional ecology" and how Benkler indicated the law usually "favors the incumbents and institutions” which is what you see happening in Harris’ case. Imagine if Harris would have started this investigation now with the increasing amount of online power that stems from individuals in the social sphere? Or for example, what we’ve recently seen with the power of public influence on legislation like SOPA/PIPA or with the Komen debacle. Could Harris have gone further or have state/county officials act much quicker? Possibly. I do agree and believe that it is easier to make a change or create these ''movements'' where “networked” individuals are banding together to act for various reasons be it politics, social injustice, etc and as Benkler puts it now on a “global, not only local" scale. [[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The wiki norms laid out in "Be Nice" can, as Reagle states, foster better conflict resolution offline. I also agree with Reagle's stance that the sometimes caustic environment/arguments on wikipedia are "necessary to properly appreciate the scope of the community and its culture." When there are millions of people hailing from a wild variety of social and cultural norms in one online arena, these disputes are to be expected. However, this somewhat negative aspect of peer production and collaboration is the same thing that makes it so great -- so many different people with a variety of skills and insights. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Very impressive points by Benkler, great summation. I'm very curious about his idea that even further expansion of the sorts of things that are peer sourced will continue inexorably. I agree with him, but I can't see how that will work in some cases where the goods are too integral to a specific industry or company's survival. It may be well and good that the online group can produce wiki entries or sift through pictures of Mars, but what happens when the task that needs to be completed is one that only a small handful of extremely highly trained experts can do? What about heart surgery techniques, or certain complex nuclear systems? The examples I make aren't perfect but I hope the point is clear. Those experts need a large framework both to be created and supported as they work (through the large cost of schooling, training, getting experience, sustaining work with expensive materials, etc.) Whether the companies pay that or whether the "future experts" pay it themselves with the promise of a high-paying job that will recoup their expenses when they become full experts, that is still a very very expensive system. Can it exist in a world where there is so much less profit attached, and where the other functions that company used to perform and fill its coffers with are now totally outsourced to the online crowd? I know this is in some ways a rehashing of the classic "Innovation is Good and Can Happen Free!! vs. You Have To Allow Patents and Profit or Innovation Dies!!" argument, but I'm curious about the ripple effect that can have. ([[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

I found Yochai Benkler’s speech to be very interesting, especially when he talked about individuals’ contribution to information in the BBC example that he gave. Another interesting aspect was that concerning democracy and the open sources of information. For what concerns the Reagle article on Wikipedia, I found it to be very true. I have noticed on various occasions that disputes are very common over Wikipedia articles and they can be characterized by a variety of reasons going from differing personal ideals to politics and many other issues. The point is that people should focus more on the reason for which Wikipedia was created and put aside hatred and personal issues/debates and cooperate to make Wikipedia a better source of learning and not a forum where an online battle should take place. I really enjoyed the statement regarding conflict as being “Addictive as cocaine” and totally agree with it since human beings are attracted to conflict to a certain extent. I also agree with Reagle when he states that “The relative “anarchy” of wiki culture, the malleability of Wikipedia content, the pseudonymity of contributors, and its consensus-based decision-making make Wikipedia particularly vulnerable to such strategic action.” [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I found one portion of Reagle's "Be Nice" article to be particularly interesting: his contrasting of the challenges (disputes, etc.) created by online interaction against the positives of collaboration (discussion boards and other collaborative tools). In particular, some of the elements of a positive prosocial community are (i) "behavior that is intentional, voluntary and of benefit to others"; (ii) relationships that rely upon "trust, empathy, and reciprocity"; and (iii) community character that is facilitated by "cultural norms" that enhance the well-being of a community. In my opinion, the first two items are fairly easy to define and can be measured when assessing online activity. The third, however, "cultural norms", seems too amorphous to define. What cultural norms exist in a new environment that attracts users from all over the globe from different cultures and age groups? I dont believe there is a starting point for cultural norms within Wikipeia to begin to assess how one may have veered off from those established norms. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 19:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I was quite fond of Benkler's analysis of peer collaboration. It certainly is present today, but I'm curious to know what he thinks the depth of it could be. It seems as though he leaves it open-ended to allow for peer collaboration on multiple levels, with no end in sight. I could see this in highly specialized fields as well, including open heart surgery. While those that can perform at such a level are few and far between, that does not preclude that they would be able to network and learn from each other. In this sense it seems as though there is no field that could not be touched by peer collaborations.

I do wish, however, that Benkler would have spoken more about Linux and the emerging network that this enables. He did show the graphic, but it was fleeting; Linux is much deeper than just digging into the pockets of Microsoft. Being an operating system, it enables everything that a computer, microchip, or any kind of electronic device is able to do. Through peer collaboration it is able to supersede the proprietary systems such as Windows or Macintosh. What is great about this is that every part of the system can benefit from the collaboration, to the point where it can become greater than any other system because it has enabled so many options that were either limited on other machines for financial/profit or control purposes or were not incorporated because they had not been considered as a viable option for the OS. Furthermore, being a system that is open to modification, it also enables integration of other devices and electronics into that system that are not enabled in other operating systems.

But the drawback to these systems are the individuals or groups that differ in opinion, much like Reagle spoke of. Since group collaboration is seems to be the greatest emerging economy, not only will it enable more through the long tail, but it will also have more detractors because of the long tail. But it seems as though these are weeded out eventually through either fracturing, or through stifling. However, with the mass advent of the Cloud, as well as multiple devices completely incorporated with one another, it seems as though it will only be a matter of time. I'm very curious, though, to know how this will play out with legal norms of the institutionalized ecology, since those laws and regulations exist for tangible objects in specific areas, rather than virtual objects in an international arena.[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

@Cfleming27 I believe that it may be possible to define Reagle's "cultural norms." Reagle acknowledges that users of Wikipedia have developed a set of norms, constellation of values, and common lingo. A basic norm or value that exists without boundaries and can be translated into any common lingo in any language is the concept of the “golden rule.” Reagle quotes Bowles & Gintis on page 3, “cultural traits governing actions” that “enhances the average level of well-being.” Can cultural norms be defined as something that enhances the average level of well-being similar to the golden rule? [[User:Hds5]] 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

When reading the article about Wikipedia I was amazed at the volume of various articles and guidelines that sought to maintain a neutral point of view, how to avoid disputes and engage in a collaborative effort. I initially wrote my assignment 1 on the NPOV and looking back didn't realize how many other guidelines that can be found by wandering down that path to become fully informed. In my article I outlined that one of the drawbacks to Wikipedia is in the quality of tools used to edit the pages. I noted while they are generally easy to use for editing bodies of main text, it can be difficult to edit something more complicated like a table which contains cells, where you have to rely on the ability to analyze raw code. I liken this to the ongoing disputes that exist regarding cooperation and NPOV. As good as it currently is, Wikipedia needs to become more accessible to additional would-be users. This includes not only improving the code editing tools but also the ways in which NPOV is maintained. I believe the best way to do this is to improve systems that make it easier for people to collaborate on disputes which impede the desired end result (peer production!) is the generally accepted neutral truth. Much like a wizard is used to create a letter or resume in MS Word (for this purpose a very simple example of automation), automating the way that people engage in disputes with more accessible tools that make it easier for people to recognize points of contention and address them in a collaborative effort will improve the end product and please critics. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I found the contrasts between Benkler and the “Be Nice” article interesting. Benkler believes that the internet has led to more social “sharing, collaboration,” and “exchange,” such as on discussion boards and Wikipedia. The “Be Nice” article emphasized how disputes on Wikipedia can be counter-productive. Since Wikipedia is open for editing by anyone, disputes can hard to avoid since people can be defensive and hold grudges, while others enjoy instigating disputes, such as “vandals” and “trolls.” I find it interesting and agree that disputing is addicting, since some people with big egos do not like to admit they are wrong. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 21:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Peer Production and Collaboration

2012-02-21T22:33:35Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''February 21'''

The free software movement is one example of a trend towards distributed volunteer networks of individuals collaborating on collective projects that were formerly the domain of the for-profit private sector. In this session, we explore how far such peer production can go in redefining the economic and social structures of modern society.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/ISFebruary21.pdf Download this week's slides (PDF)]'''

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|Assignment 2]] due

==Readings==

<onlyinclude>
* Yochai Benkler, [http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/394/ News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (watch from 8:32 to 26:07)
* Joseph Reagle, [http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/reagle-nrhm-special-collab-norms.html ”Be Nice”: Wikipedia Norms for Supportive Communication]

== Additional Resources==
Joseph Reagle's book: [http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/ Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia]

The following audio streams from NPR may be interesting:
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4986453 Wikipedia, Open Source and the Future of the Web]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6051103 Wikipedia Wins Users and Critics by Jenny Lawton]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4506421 Wikipedia's Growth Comes with Concerns by Laura Sydell]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

February 21: Peer Production and Collaboration

I like the Yocha's Idea that "what we see now is the emergence of social sharing and exchange as a major additional modality of production." He says this has created new competition, like the PSP to the recording industry, the Free Open Source Software to Microsoft, Wikipedia to Grollier and Encarta, and Skype to Telecomms. I like these new opportunities that have been arising and personally think they are unstopable. As he said, at the beginning nobody would have thought that an the collaboration of many users could create an encyclopedia, but now we have Wikipedia as another source of information, differing from Britannica in scope but with the same aims, to spread knowledge. Indeed, Wikipedia is a source of controversy itself, but opinions are diverse and personally i liked the one in the NPR program from a participant who said that he relies on Wikipedia more than another encyclopedia because more people participate in the building of the articles.

I think it was rather interesting how Uricchio described Benkler and Jenkins as having reciprocity in that they come from two different directions (culturally or socially), but occupy the same terrain. Can't wait to hear more in class. [[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 21:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great discussion with Yochai Benkler on economics of social production and politics. The Diebold example is a perfect indication of showing how this system of the “structured web” is effective in "offering visibility to more people" and easier for each "individual and small group to speak and be heard." Has anyone by chance seen the HBO documentary, ''Hacking Democracy''? If not, check it out ([[http://www.wanttoknow.info/electionsvideodocumentary]]), which gives a more in depth and detailed insight into the investigation Bev Harris and her associate Kathleen Wynne (Black Box Voting, Inc.) did to expose security weaknesses in electronic voting systems. Also demonstrates the "battle with institutional ecology" and how Benkler indicated the law usually "favors the incumbents and institutions” which is what you see happening in Harris’ case. Imagine if Harris would have started this investigation now with the increasing amount of online power that stems from individuals in the social sphere? Or for example, what we’ve recently seen with the power of public influence on legislation like SOPA/PIPA or with the Komen debacle. Could Harris have gone further or have state/county officials act much quicker? Possibly. I do agree and believe that it is easier to make a change or create these ''movements'' where “networked” individuals are banding together to act for various reasons be it politics, social injustice, etc and as Benkler puts it now on a “global, not only local" scale. [[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The wiki norms laid out in "Be Nice" can, as Reagle states, foster better conflict resolution offline. I also agree with Reagle's stance that the sometimes caustic environment/arguments on wikipedia are "necessary to properly appreciate the scope of the community and its culture." When there are millions of people hailing from a wild variety of social and cultural norms in one online arena, these disputes are to be expected. However, this somewhat negative aspect of peer production and collaboration is the same thing that makes it so great -- so many different people with a variety of skills and insights. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 22:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Very impressive points by Benkler, great summation. I'm very curious about his idea that even further expansion of the sorts of things that are peer sourced will continue inexorably. I agree with him, but I can't see how that will work in some cases where the goods are too integral to a specific industry or company's survival. It may be well and good that the online group can produce wiki entries or sift through pictures of Mars, but what happens when the task that needs to be completed is one that only a small handful of extremely highly trained experts can do? What about heart surgery techniques, or certain complex nuclear systems? The examples I make aren't perfect but I hope the point is clear. Those experts need a large framework both to be created and supported as they work (through the large cost of schooling, training, getting experience, sustaining work with expensive materials, etc.) Whether the companies pay that or whether the "future experts" pay it themselves with the promise of a high-paying job that will recoup their expenses when they become full experts, that is still a very very expensive system. Can it exist in a world where there is so much less profit attached, and where the other functions that company used to perform and fill its coffers with are now totally outsourced to the online crowd? I know this is in some ways a rehashing of the classic "Innovation is Good and Can Happen Free!! vs. You Have To Allow Patents and Profit or Innovation Dies!!" argument, but I'm curious about the ripple effect that can have. ([[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

I found Yochai Benkler’s speech to be very interesting, especially when he talked about individuals’ contribution to information in the BBC example that he gave. Another interesting aspect was that concerning democracy and the open sources of information. For what concerns the Reagle article on Wikipedia, I found it to be very true. I have noticed on various occasions that disputes are very common over Wikipedia articles and they can be characterized by a variety of reasons going from differing personal ideals to politics and many other issues. The point is that people should focus more on the reason for which Wikipedia was created and put aside hatred and personal issues/debates and cooperate to make Wikipedia a better source of learning and not a forum where an online battle should take place. I really enjoyed the statement regarding conflict as being “Addictive as cocaine” and totally agree with it since human beings are attracted to conflict to a certain extent. I also agree with Reagle when he states that “The relative “anarchy” of wiki culture, the malleability of Wikipedia content, the pseudonymity of contributors, and its consensus-based decision-making make Wikipedia particularly vulnerable to such strategic action.” [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I found one portion of Reagle's "Be Nice" article to be particularly interesting: his contrasting of the challenges (disputes, etc.) created by online interaction against the positives of collaboration (discussion boards and other collaborative tools). In particular, some of the elements of a positive prosocial community are (i) "behavior that is intentional, voluntary and of benefit to others"; (ii) relationships that rely upon "trust, empathy, and reciprocity"; and (iii) community character that is facilitated by "cultural norms" that enhance the well-being of a community. In my opinion, the first two items are fairly easy to define and can be measured when assessing online activity. The third, however, "cultural norms", seems too amorphous to define. What cultural norms exist in a new environment that attracts users from all over the globe from different cultures and age groups? I dont believe there is a starting point for cultural norms within Wikipeia to begin to assess how one may have veered off from those established norms. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 19:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I was quite fond of Benkler's analysis of peer collaboration. It certainly is present today, but I'm curious to know what he thinks the depth of it could be. It seems as though he leaves it open-ended to allow for peer collaboration on multiple levels, with no end in sight. I could see this in highly specialized fields as well, including open heart surgery. While those that can perform at such a level are few and far between, that does not preclude that they would be able to network and learn from each other. In this sense it seems as though there is no field that could not be touched by peer collaborations.

I do wish, however, that Benkler would have spoken more about Linux and the emerging network that this enables. He did show the graphic, but it was fleeting; Linux is much deeper than just digging into the pockets of Microsoft. Being an operating system, it enables everything that a computer, microchip, or any kind of electronic device is able to do. Through peer collaboration it is able to supersede the proprietary systems such as Windows or Macintosh. What is great about this is that every part of the system can benefit from the collaboration, to the point where it can become greater than any other system because it has enabled so many options that were either limited on other machines for financial/profit or control purposes or were not incorporated because they had not been considered as a viable option for the OS. Furthermore, being a system that is open to modification, it also enables integration of other devices and electronics into that system that are not enabled in other operating systems.

But the drawback to these systems are the individuals or groups that differ in opinion, much like Reagle spoke of. Since group collaboration is seems to be the greatest emerging economy, not only will it enable more through the long tail, but it will also have more detractors because of the long tail. But it seems as though these are weeded out eventually through either fracturing, or through stifling. However, with the mass advent of the Cloud, as well as multiple devices completely incorporated with one another, it seems as though it will only be a matter of time. I'm very curious, though, to know how this will play out with legal norms of the institutionalized ecology, since those laws and regulations exist for tangible objects in specific areas, rather than virtual objects in an international arena.[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

@Cfleming27 I believe that it may be possible to define Reagle's "cultural norms." Reagle acknowledges that users of Wikipedia have developed a set of norms, constellation of values, and common lingo. A basic norm or value that exists without boundaries and can be translated into any common lingo in any language is the concept of the “golden rule.” Reagle quotes Bowles & Gintis on page 3, “cultural traits governing actions” that “enhances the average level of well-being.” Can cultural norms be defined as something that enhances the average level of well-being similar to the golden rule? [[User:Hds5]] 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

When reading the article about Wikipedia I was amazed at the volume of various articles and guidelines that sought to maintain a neutral point of view, how to avoid disputes and engage in a collaborative effort. I initially wrote my assignment 1 on the NPOV and looking back didn't realize how many other guidelines that can be found by wandering down that path to become fully informed. In my article I outlined that one of the drawbacks to Wikipedia is in the quality of tools used to edit the pages. I noted while they are generally easy to use for editing bodies of main text, it can be difficult to edit something more complicated like a table which contains cells, where you have to rely on the ability to analyze raw code. I liken this to the ongoing disputes that exist regarding cooperation and NPOV. As good as it currently is, Wikipedia needs to become more accessible to additional would-be users. This includes not only improving the code editing tools but also the ways in which NPOV is maintained. I believe the best way to do this is to improve systems that make it easier for people to collaborate on disputes which impede the desired end result (peer production!) is the generally accepted neutral truth. Much like a wizard is used to create a letter or resume in MS Word (for this purpose a very simple example of automation), automating the way that people engage in disputes with more accessible tools that make it easier for people to recognize points of contention and address them in a collaborative effort will improve the end product and please critics. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I found the contrasts between Benkler and the “Be Nice” article interesting. Benkler believes that the internet has led to more social “sharing, collaboration,” and “exchange,” such as on discussion boards and Wikipedia. The “Be Nice” article emphasized how disputes on Wikipedia can be counter-productive. Since Wikipedia is open for editing by anyone, disputes can hard to avoid since people can be defensive and hold grudges, while others enjoy instigating disputes, such as “vandals” and “trolls.” I find it interesting and agree that disputing is addicting, since some people with big egos do not like to admit they are wrong. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 21:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-02-21T19:09:08Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2012-02-21T19:08:11Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

File:Fabian Celis Assignment 2.doc

2012-02-21T18:57:47Z

Fabiancelisj:

New Economic Models

2012-02-14T21:04:12Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 14'''

The rise of the networked economy is changing economic possibilities around the world. From the call centers in India to eBay and the new Internet entrepreneurs, there are many signs that suggest a flatter world fueled by innovative production and marketing strategies. In this session, we will explore the promise and reality of the changing economic tides associated with rising Internet use including those marketing to the long tail and the new oligopolists.

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot-com Bubble]
* Chris Anderson, [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html The Long Tail]
* Kevin Kelly, [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Better than Free]
* Eric von Hippel:
** The Economics of Open Content Symposium: New Models of Creative Production in the Digital Age Collaboration and the Marketplace - '''Video stream of the 30-minute presentation: [http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel new improved link!]''' (requires [http://real.com/ RealPlayer]). See below for alternate links to the presentation in video and audio format.
** [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Democratizing Innovation, Chapter 8: Adapting Policy to User Innovation]

== Additional Resources==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail "Wikipedia Long Tail"]
* Free by Chris Anderson[http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?]
* Larry Lessig's [http://codev2.cc/ Code 2.0]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

What interested me more about the readings was the dot-com case and the high risk that these internet-based companies were taking. Even though they knew that there could only be one network-effects winner in each sector, they continued with their strategy of “get large or get lost.” Also, they were not investing a few thousand dollars, but millions of them in a battle to remain in the dot-com business. As a result, only some large dot-com businesses remained, such as Amazon and eBay.

Also I enjoyed The Long Tail article because it explains a number of phenomena I think all in this class have experienced but sometimes were unaware of the causes. First, we were living in a Hit-driven culture, talking about the same movies or TV series at high school, but we knew little about foreign TV shows and movies. Part of this issue is why the East criticizes the West, because probably we know who is Lady Gaga but we don’t who wrote Le Tartuffe.

Thus, what I like about The Long Tail, and also part of the author’s conclusion, is that we are entering in a more diversified time, where not everybody listens to the same songs, looks the same movies and reads the same books. The more we find, the more we like.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have two thoughts relating this week's reading to the larger world.
The first is a re-synthesis of other ideas, in that the internet has not really so much created new things as it has amplified already existing phenomena. Media sharing has been around nearly as long as the media itself. In the 80's, the band Metallica encouraged fans to make copies of their music (on cassette tapes) and hand them out to friends. I remember my own friends and relatives trading albums on cassettes and mix tapes. My grandmother had a set up to easily copy VHS tapes at home. She would rent movies, and copy them for later. Certain movies that were more popular were often purchased, since it made them easier to find (my grandmother had a cataloging system, where every tape was numbered, with the movies that were on each tape listed both on the tape, and recorded in a notebook - just looking for the right tape cover was much easier), and better quality. Sure, the movie companies didn't make as much money as if she had bought all of the movies, but then again, she bought much more than she would have otherwise. The only real difference now, is that it is easier, more widespread, more exhaustive, and easier to see.

The second is that my wife and I often observe to each other that while companies are often most concerned about owning the most market share, or getting the largest profit per unit, what really should matter is if any individual thing is profitable. It is ok to have a portion of the business that is less profitable, so long as it is still is profitable in the first place. It doesn't matter if an individual item is hugely profitable, so long as once all the costs have been payed, the item makes money.
One example of this would be the breakdown of the starsplay/ netflix arangement. Stars Play wanted to deal with netflix like a cable company, making individuals who wanted the extra content pay separately for it. Netflix wanted to outright license the Stars Play content, rather than start a two tier pricing scheme. Because SP didn't want to compromise, there was no deal. I, for one, never intend on accessing SP content elsewhere (and certainly not paying for it), do not have a cable tv subscription that has access to it, and would not have paid extra for it if they had gotten netflix to budge. There are far too many interesting titles for me to watch that, while it might not be exactly what I wanted, costs me nothing additional. SP meanwhile, loses out on my little sliver of what netflix would have payed them. Sure, they wouldn't have made as much money per unit, but they would have made money they wouldn't have made otherwise.
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I really loved the Wired article and its point that this next era will be more about “misses” than “hits.” The internet and new technology remove almost all the related costs that created this all-or-nothing dichotomy; once I read it, it seems so obvious to realize that “misses” still can generate reasonable profits, just not ones that could overcome the expenses inherent in our older distribution systems (movie theater, an actual record store in a small town, etc.). The concept of the Long Tail and the 3 Major Business Rules he gives at the end are all great.

I’m a reasonably expense-conscious person in the just post-college age range with a low income, but I am also quite active in pursuing media I enjoy (movies, tv shows, music, books). With so much available free online (illegally) I tend to only pay (whether by actually paying or by getting it through a medium that provides ad revenue directly to the creator) for around 1/3 of all the media I enjoy. Those are the songs by artists I like best and truly want to support, or the movies that I am so impressed with that I want to contribute to their box office take and that simplemindedly measured “success.” Following the second Long Tail Rule, I would be very happy to pay SOMETHING for almost everything I enjoy. Lowering the prices dramatically or providing a “pay what you feel” option would actually increase what I’m happy to pay pretty significantly. And I know this is totally anecdotal, but I feel like most of my peers have the same sentiment.

Does that sound about right to everyone else in the class? Would you pay at least something for everything if that was an option?

Democratizing Innovation echoes a lot of discussions/other readings we have had about the importance of having both the manufacturers and users able and willing to innovate. The phrase “Policy makers should be aware of ‘collateral damage’ that may be inflicted on user innovation by legislation aimed at other targets“ really summed it up well for me. As cliché as it is now, “thinking outside the box” is sometimes only possible when people have the ability to ignore the boundaries that create that box. This is something very difficult for major organizations or corporations to do, but easy for individuals. Unfortunately, with acts like SOPA even being proposed, we seem to be moving in to opposite direction of the more user-innovation focused world the chapter argues for.

And just briefly on the dot com crash: I’ve studied the housing bubble/foreclosure crisis quite a bit in the past few years, but was too young to really grasp what was happening with these comparably massive dot com crashes at the time. This look back was pretty jarring. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally had no knowledge al all of the dot-com bubble system. It seems to me that these bubbles were more of a financial scheme rather than a legally oriented invention. Creating something that people will invest in just because of the e- prefix or the .com at the end seems a bit naïve and risky but surprisingly enough many people fell for this and as a result some made money but the majority lost their funds and companies went bankrupt. I really enjoyed reading the Long Tail article. I never would have guessed that thanks to modern systems such as the internet and Amazon.com for example, old hits or even more surprisingly “misses” would turn out to be hits. I often noticed while buying merchandise on Amazon.com that at the bottom of the page it would show me related items and trends and I must admit that a few times while buying books or DVDs specifically, I have also bought related items suggested by Amazon. Another article that I enjoyed reading was the one Better than Free since I agree with the author and find myself in similar situations. I believe that most people emphasize one of the generatives rather than all eight of them. Personally I like having something immediately delivered to me rather than doing several searches for something that would take me time, and therefore I also agree with the Findability generative as well. I also enjoyed the last article and found it to be really accurate. Users looking for or in need of a certain device either continued with their lives without it or in the case of the article, built it or developed it themselves…the majority of inventions are user centered rather than discovered and developed by manufacturers . I personally think that some of the most important inventions took place because of the user’s need for a given device. Large corporations don’t usually see what people could use on an everyday basis but aim to invent spectacular devices in order to sell and make profits. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@AlexLe I wanted to reply to your question about paying at least something for everything if it's presented as an option. My husband and I developed a catchphrase while traveling that went something like, "Why won't you let me pay you??!!" Sometimes this had to do with things like trying to find a place where we could do (or pay someone to do) laundry but oftentimes it had to do with companies not getting their act together online. One classic (hypothetical, of course) example was when my husband wanted to read a particular comic book while we were in Malaysia. So he went to the publisher's website and searched for it. They didn't have any digital copies and print copies weren't available either (not that they would have been much use to him in Asia). So he then went "elsewhere" and found exactly what he was looking for. He even contemplated sending money directly to the author because he really liked the guy's work and wanted him to get something for his efforts. Generally speaking, we try to go through proper channels first but if those don't work, we'll take our business elsewhere.

To get a little Cluetrain Manifesto, companies are shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can sit back and dictate the terms of their relationships with consumers. Yes, the profit margins may be smaller to offer products online in easily reproducible formats, but companies are effectively putting themselves out of business by not acting as useful intermediaries. Kevin Kelly does a great job of highlighting the potential value-adds of intermediaries in "Better than Free", while Chris Anderson explores the significant profit opportunities available to companies that exploit the long tail. If companies invested as much time and energy in getting ahead of the on-demand media delivery curve as they did fighting for control of an antiquated relationship between producers and consumers that consumers are opting out of anyway, then those companies might actually have a shot of staying in business for the next five years. /rant
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 04:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Power of the Preview"

During high school, the internet was in its infancy. Therefore the accessibility of lesser-known artists to sell their songs/albums in the open market was limited. I have been involved in music throughout my life and a band’s path to creating a commercial album has been a challenging and structured process starting with signing up with a label, providing upfront costs for production, pressing CD's and so on. In this digital age where physical CD's are no longer required and home studio technology has advanced, the costs to produce an album are certainly less. While I am not familiar with popular music sites such as Rhapsody, I know that iTunes is quite accessible in allowing independent musicians sell their songs on their platform.

In addition to the algorithmic recommendations that have created the Long Tail, I also believe that the “preview” function is also vitally important. To hear a segment of a song is particularly powerful for the Long Tail effect (i.e. iTunes). Prior to the music digital media age, the only way that a listener could preview a more obscure band was by listening to the album through others or seeing live shows. Therefore consumers were less likely to pay full price for an entire album from a band that they were wholly unfamiliar with. However the ability for consumers to hear parts of songs has undoubtedly contributed to the Long Tail affect.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that the generative qualities immediacy, personalization, accessibility, and findability allow Youtube, online radio, and Netflix to become my main source for entertainment in the free copies world. I no longer depend on my TV, which had limited shows and a fixed schedule. On the contrary, I can basically find any video on Youtube and watch them for free. With a Youtube account, I can create a play list and watch my favorite videos at my convenience. I had also watched many seasons of America’s Next Top Model on Youtube for free.
I remember the days when I had to call into a local radio station to request them to play my favorite song. Now, I can just go on Youtube and watch/listen to my favorite songs. I also no longer feel the need to run to a store to buy a favorite CD or the need to purchase my favorite songs. I also appreciate the fact that I can stream my favorite local radio station online, even when I am out of the local range. Netflix is another example of a convenience source to access shows and movies instantly. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 04:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed the Technium article that mentioned the generative qualities that favor the consumer. Companies like Amazon and Wikipedia embody these qualities the most, with Amazon give us a great example of the Long Tail. As a superstore, Amazon has an incredible amount of adaptability and ability to connect buyers and sellers. Lots of items bought off Amazon are from other sellers they do business with so they are just connecting you to them. I do wish Kevin Kelly touched on advertising which he admittedly omitted. Perhaps he wanted to avoid the discussion of consumer versus producer driven demand and who shaped or steered these generative forces more. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The properties of generative innovation that von Hipple spoke of is quite eye opening, albeit not unexpected. The shift from manufacturing standards to user generative improvements reflects the long tail effect spoke of in the other articles. Unfortunately it seems as though most companies and manufacturers adhere to the antiquated principles of limitation. Von Hipple is quite clear when he states that many of the users and innovators seek a shift of the current legal precedents set through patent law and copyrights. As he noted, the physical world costs time, money, actual physical stuff to be modified. But in the virtual world, anything can be copied and modified without the need for physical items, or even R&D, since that can come through democratization of innovation. Because the virtual world inside computers allows for instant copying and modification, and since the internet allows for the instant communication and copying between systems, the long tail is not only enabled, but it allows for instant results at virtually no cost. But it is precisely because it is virtual and it avoids cost (or profit for that matter) that the application of laws and practices that rule a world of normal distribution don’t apply. Those laws apply to systems of manufacture in which it is difficult or costly to enable that manufacture. One in which all users can be grouped into large groups, instead of millions of small ones. As the world moves closer and closer to the singularity, the laws and rules of the physical world need to be modified in order to account for the virtual world, or new laws and regulations need to be made, ones which address the difficulties of controlling the long tail. And I don’t really see that happening because of the rights that would be infringed upon (freedom of speech, press, expression, et al.).[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way here is a link to "Free" by Chris Anderson: http://books.google.com/books?id=lLZbXN2odVYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q&f=false [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

New Economic Models

2012-02-14T21:03:27Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 14'''

The rise of the networked economy is changing economic possibilities around the world. From the call centers in India to eBay and the new Internet entrepreneurs, there are many signs that suggest a flatter world fueled by innovative production and marketing strategies. In this session, we will explore the promise and reality of the changing economic tides associated with rising Internet use including those marketing to the long tail and the new oligopolists.

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot-com Bubble]
* Chris Anderson, [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html The Long Tail]
* Kevin Kelly, [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Better than Free]
* Eric von Hippel:
** The Economics of Open Content Symposium: New Models of Creative Production in the Digital Age Collaboration and the Marketplace - '''Video stream of the 30-minute presentation: [http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel new improved link!]''' (requires [http://real.com/ RealPlayer]). See below for alternate links to the presentation in video and audio format.
** [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Democratizing Innovation, Chapter 8: Adapting Policy to User Innovation]

== Additional Resources==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail "Wikipedia Long Tail"]
* Free by Chris Anderson[http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?]
* Larry Lessig's [http://codev2.cc/ Code 2.0]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

What interested me more about the readings was the dot-com case and the high risk that these internet-based companies were taking. Even they knew that there could only be one network-effects winner in each sector, they continued with their strategy of “get large or get lost.” Also, they were not investing a few thousand dollars, but millions of them in a battle to remain in the dot-com business. As a result, only some large dot-com businesses remained, such as Amazon and eBay.

Also I enjoyed The Long Tail article because it explains a number of phenomena I think all in this class have experienced but sometimes were unaware of the causes. First, we were living in a Hit-driven culture, talking about the same movies or TV series at high school, but we knew little about foreign TV shows and movies. Part of this issue is why the East criticizes the West, because probably we know who is Lady Gaga but we don’t who wrote Le Tartuffe.

Thus, what I like about The Long Tail, and also part of the author’s conclusion, is that we are entering in a more diversified time, where not everybody listens to the same songs, looks the same movies and reads the same books. The more we find, the more we like.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have two thoughts relating this week's reading to the larger world.
The first is a re-synthesis of other ideas, in that the internet has not really so much created new things as it has amplified already existing phenomena. Media sharing has been around nearly as long as the media itself. In the 80's, the band Metallica encouraged fans to make copies of their music (on cassette tapes) and hand them out to friends. I remember my own friends and relatives trading albums on cassettes and mix tapes. My grandmother had a set up to easily copy VHS tapes at home. She would rent movies, and copy them for later. Certain movies that were more popular were often purchased, since it made them easier to find (my grandmother had a cataloging system, where every tape was numbered, with the movies that were on each tape listed both on the tape, and recorded in a notebook - just looking for the right tape cover was much easier), and better quality. Sure, the movie companies didn't make as much money as if she had bought all of the movies, but then again, she bought much more than she would have otherwise. The only real difference now, is that it is easier, more widespread, more exhaustive, and easier to see.

The second is that my wife and I often observe to each other that while companies are often most concerned about owning the most market share, or getting the largest profit per unit, what really should matter is if any individual thing is profitable. It is ok to have a portion of the business that is less profitable, so long as it is still is profitable in the first place. It doesn't matter if an individual item is hugely profitable, so long as once all the costs have been payed, the item makes money.
One example of this would be the breakdown of the starsplay/ netflix arangement. Stars Play wanted to deal with netflix like a cable company, making individuals who wanted the extra content pay separately for it. Netflix wanted to outright license the Stars Play content, rather than start a two tier pricing scheme. Because SP didn't want to compromise, there was no deal. I, for one, never intend on accessing SP content elsewhere (and certainly not paying for it), do not have a cable tv subscription that has access to it, and would not have paid extra for it if they had gotten netflix to budge. There are far too many interesting titles for me to watch that, while it might not be exactly what I wanted, costs me nothing additional. SP meanwhile, loses out on my little sliver of what netflix would have payed them. Sure, they wouldn't have made as much money per unit, but they would have made money they wouldn't have made otherwise.
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I really loved the Wired article and its point that this next era will be more about “misses” than “hits.” The internet and new technology remove almost all the related costs that created this all-or-nothing dichotomy; once I read it, it seems so obvious to realize that “misses” still can generate reasonable profits, just not ones that could overcome the expenses inherent in our older distribution systems (movie theater, an actual record store in a small town, etc.). The concept of the Long Tail and the 3 Major Business Rules he gives at the end are all great.

I’m a reasonably expense-conscious person in the just post-college age range with a low income, but I am also quite active in pursuing media I enjoy (movies, tv shows, music, books). With so much available free online (illegally) I tend to only pay (whether by actually paying or by getting it through a medium that provides ad revenue directly to the creator) for around 1/3 of all the media I enjoy. Those are the songs by artists I like best and truly want to support, or the movies that I am so impressed with that I want to contribute to their box office take and that simplemindedly measured “success.” Following the second Long Tail Rule, I would be very happy to pay SOMETHING for almost everything I enjoy. Lowering the prices dramatically or providing a “pay what you feel” option would actually increase what I’m happy to pay pretty significantly. And I know this is totally anecdotal, but I feel like most of my peers have the same sentiment.

Does that sound about right to everyone else in the class? Would you pay at least something for everything if that was an option?

Democratizing Innovation echoes a lot of discussions/other readings we have had about the importance of having both the manufacturers and users able and willing to innovate. The phrase “Policy makers should be aware of ‘collateral damage’ that may be inflicted on user innovation by legislation aimed at other targets“ really summed it up well for me. As cliché as it is now, “thinking outside the box” is sometimes only possible when people have the ability to ignore the boundaries that create that box. This is something very difficult for major organizations or corporations to do, but easy for individuals. Unfortunately, with acts like SOPA even being proposed, we seem to be moving in to opposite direction of the more user-innovation focused world the chapter argues for.

And just briefly on the dot com crash: I’ve studied the housing bubble/foreclosure crisis quite a bit in the past few years, but was too young to really grasp what was happening with these comparably massive dot com crashes at the time. This look back was pretty jarring. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally had no knowledge al all of the dot-com bubble system. It seems to me that these bubbles were more of a financial scheme rather than a legally oriented invention. Creating something that people will invest in just because of the e- prefix or the .com at the end seems a bit naïve and risky but surprisingly enough many people fell for this and as a result some made money but the majority lost their funds and companies went bankrupt. I really enjoyed reading the Long Tail article. I never would have guessed that thanks to modern systems such as the internet and Amazon.com for example, old hits or even more surprisingly “misses” would turn out to be hits. I often noticed while buying merchandise on Amazon.com that at the bottom of the page it would show me related items and trends and I must admit that a few times while buying books or DVDs specifically, I have also bought related items suggested by Amazon. Another article that I enjoyed reading was the one Better than Free since I agree with the author and find myself in similar situations. I believe that most people emphasize one of the generatives rather than all eight of them. Personally I like having something immediately delivered to me rather than doing several searches for something that would take me time, and therefore I also agree with the Findability generative as well. I also enjoyed the last article and found it to be really accurate. Users looking for or in need of a certain device either continued with their lives without it or in the case of the article, built it or developed it themselves…the majority of inventions are user centered rather than discovered and developed by manufacturers . I personally think that some of the most important inventions took place because of the user’s need for a given device. Large corporations don’t usually see what people could use on an everyday basis but aim to invent spectacular devices in order to sell and make profits. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@AlexLe I wanted to reply to your question about paying at least something for everything if it's presented as an option. My husband and I developed a catchphrase while traveling that went something like, "Why won't you let me pay you??!!" Sometimes this had to do with things like trying to find a place where we could do (or pay someone to do) laundry but oftentimes it had to do with companies not getting their act together online. One classic (hypothetical, of course) example was when my husband wanted to read a particular comic book while we were in Malaysia. So he went to the publisher's website and searched for it. They didn't have any digital copies and print copies weren't available either (not that they would have been much use to him in Asia). So he then went "elsewhere" and found exactly what he was looking for. He even contemplated sending money directly to the author because he really liked the guy's work and wanted him to get something for his efforts. Generally speaking, we try to go through proper channels first but if those don't work, we'll take our business elsewhere.

To get a little Cluetrain Manifesto, companies are shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can sit back and dictate the terms of their relationships with consumers. Yes, the profit margins may be smaller to offer products online in easily reproducible formats, but companies are effectively putting themselves out of business by not acting as useful intermediaries. Kevin Kelly does a great job of highlighting the potential value-adds of intermediaries in "Better than Free", while Chris Anderson explores the significant profit opportunities available to companies that exploit the long tail. If companies invested as much time and energy in getting ahead of the on-demand media delivery curve as they did fighting for control of an antiquated relationship between producers and consumers that consumers are opting out of anyway, then those companies might actually have a shot of staying in business for the next five years. /rant
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 04:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Power of the Preview"

During high school, the internet was in its infancy. Therefore the accessibility of lesser-known artists to sell their songs/albums in the open market was limited. I have been involved in music throughout my life and a band’s path to creating a commercial album has been a challenging and structured process starting with signing up with a label, providing upfront costs for production, pressing CD's and so on. In this digital age where physical CD's are no longer required and home studio technology has advanced, the costs to produce an album are certainly less. While I am not familiar with popular music sites such as Rhapsody, I know that iTunes is quite accessible in allowing independent musicians sell their songs on their platform.

In addition to the algorithmic recommendations that have created the Long Tail, I also believe that the “preview” function is also vitally important. To hear a segment of a song is particularly powerful for the Long Tail effect (i.e. iTunes). Prior to the music digital media age, the only way that a listener could preview a more obscure band was by listening to the album through others or seeing live shows. Therefore consumers were less likely to pay full price for an entire album from a band that they were wholly unfamiliar with. However the ability for consumers to hear parts of songs has undoubtedly contributed to the Long Tail affect.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that the generative qualities immediacy, personalization, accessibility, and findability allow Youtube, online radio, and Netflix to become my main source for entertainment in the free copies world. I no longer depend on my TV, which had limited shows and a fixed schedule. On the contrary, I can basically find any video on Youtube and watch them for free. With a Youtube account, I can create a play list and watch my favorite videos at my convenience. I had also watched many seasons of America’s Next Top Model on Youtube for free.
I remember the days when I had to call into a local radio station to request them to play my favorite song. Now, I can just go on Youtube and watch/listen to my favorite songs. I also no longer feel the need to run to a store to buy a favorite CD or the need to purchase my favorite songs. I also appreciate the fact that I can stream my favorite local radio station online, even when I am out of the local range. Netflix is another example of a convenience source to access shows and movies instantly. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 04:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed the Technium article that mentioned the generative qualities that favor the consumer. Companies like Amazon and Wikipedia embody these qualities the most, with Amazon give us a great example of the Long Tail. As a superstore, Amazon has an incredible amount of adaptability and ability to connect buyers and sellers. Lots of items bought off Amazon are from other sellers they do business with so they are just connecting you to them. I do wish Kevin Kelly touched on advertising which he admittedly omitted. Perhaps he wanted to avoid the discussion of consumer versus producer driven demand and who shaped or steered these generative forces more. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The properties of generative innovation that von Hipple spoke of is quite eye opening, albeit not unexpected. The shift from manufacturing standards to user generative improvements reflects the long tail effect spoke of in the other articles. Unfortunately it seems as though most companies and manufacturers adhere to the antiquated principles of limitation. Von Hipple is quite clear when he states that many of the users and innovators seek a shift of the current legal precedents set through patent law and copyrights. As he noted, the physical world costs time, money, actual physical stuff to be modified. But in the virtual world, anything can be copied and modified without the need for physical items, or even R&D, since that can come through democratization of innovation. Because the virtual world inside computers allows for instant copying and modification, and since the internet allows for the instant communication and copying between systems, the long tail is not only enabled, but it allows for instant results at virtually no cost. But it is precisely because it is virtual and it avoids cost (or profit for that matter) that the application of laws and practices that rule a world of normal distribution don’t apply. Those laws apply to systems of manufacture in which it is difficult or costly to enable that manufacture. One in which all users can be grouped into large groups, instead of millions of small ones. As the world moves closer and closer to the singularity, the laws and rules of the physical world need to be modified in order to account for the virtual world, or new laws and regulations need to be made, ones which address the difficulties of controlling the long tail. And I don’t really see that happening because of the rights that would be infringed upon (freedom of speech, press, expression, et al.).[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way here is a link to "Free" by Chris Anderson: http://books.google.com/books?id=lLZbXN2odVYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q&f=false [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

New Economic Models

2012-02-14T21:02:00Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 14'''

The rise of the networked economy is changing economic possibilities around the world. From the call centers in India to eBay and the new Internet entrepreneurs, there are many signs that suggest a flatter world fueled by innovative production and marketing strategies. In this session, we will explore the promise and reality of the changing economic tides associated with rising Internet use including those marketing to the long tail and the new oligopolists.

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot-com Bubble]
* Chris Anderson, [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html The Long Tail]
* Kevin Kelly, [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Better than Free]
* Eric von Hippel:
** The Economics of Open Content Symposium: New Models of Creative Production in the Digital Age Collaboration and the Marketplace - '''Video stream of the 30-minute presentation: [http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel new improved link!]''' (requires [http://real.com/ RealPlayer]). See below for alternate links to the presentation in video and audio format.
** [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Democratizing Innovation, Chapter 8: Adapting Policy to User Innovation]

== Additional Resources==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail "Wikipedia Long Tail"]
* Free by Chris Anderson[http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?]
* Larry Lessig's [http://codev2.cc/ Code 2.0]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

What interested me more about the readings was the dot-com case and the high risk that these internet-based companies were taking. Even they knew that there could only be one network-effects winner in each sector, they continued with their strategy of “get large or get lost.” Also, they were not investing a few thousand dollars, but millions of them in a battle to remain in the dot-com business. As a result, only some large dot-com businesses remained, such as Amazon and eBay.

Also I enjoyed The Long Tail article because it explains a number of phenomena I think all in this class have experienced but sometimes were unaware of the causes. First, we were living in a Hit-driven culture, talking about the same movies or TV series at high school, but we knew little about foreign TV shows and movies. Part of this issue is what the East criticizes the West, because probably we know who is Lady Gaga but we don’t who wrote Le Tartuffe.

Thus, what I like about The Long Tail, and also part of the author’s conclusion, is that we are entering in a more diversified time, where not everybody listens to the same songs, looks the same movies and reads the same books. The more we find, the more we like.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have two thoughts relating this week's reading to the larger world.
The first is a re-synthesis of other ideas, in that the internet has not really so much created new things as it has amplified already existing phenomena. Media sharing has been around nearly as long as the media itself. In the 80's, the band Metallica encouraged fans to make copies of their music (on cassette tapes) and hand them out to friends. I remember my own friends and relatives trading albums on cassettes and mix tapes. My grandmother had a set up to easily copy VHS tapes at home. She would rent movies, and copy them for later. Certain movies that were more popular were often purchased, since it made them easier to find (my grandmother had a cataloging system, where every tape was numbered, with the movies that were on each tape listed both on the tape, and recorded in a notebook - just looking for the right tape cover was much easier), and better quality. Sure, the movie companies didn't make as much money as if she had bought all of the movies, but then again, she bought much more than she would have otherwise. The only real difference now, is that it is easier, more widespread, more exhaustive, and easier to see.

The second is that my wife and I often observe to each other that while companies are often most concerned about owning the most market share, or getting the largest profit per unit, what really should matter is if any individual thing is profitable. It is ok to have a portion of the business that is less profitable, so long as it is still is profitable in the first place. It doesn't matter if an individual item is hugely profitable, so long as once all the costs have been payed, the item makes money.
One example of this would be the breakdown of the starsplay/ netflix arangement. Stars Play wanted to deal with netflix like a cable company, making individuals who wanted the extra content pay separately for it. Netflix wanted to outright license the Stars Play content, rather than start a two tier pricing scheme. Because SP didn't want to compromise, there was no deal. I, for one, never intend on accessing SP content elsewhere (and certainly not paying for it), do not have a cable tv subscription that has access to it, and would not have paid extra for it if they had gotten netflix to budge. There are far too many interesting titles for me to watch that, while it might not be exactly what I wanted, costs me nothing additional. SP meanwhile, loses out on my little sliver of what netflix would have payed them. Sure, they wouldn't have made as much money per unit, but they would have made money they wouldn't have made otherwise.
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I really loved the Wired article and its point that this next era will be more about “misses” than “hits.” The internet and new technology remove almost all the related costs that created this all-or-nothing dichotomy; once I read it, it seems so obvious to realize that “misses” still can generate reasonable profits, just not ones that could overcome the expenses inherent in our older distribution systems (movie theater, an actual record store in a small town, etc.). The concept of the Long Tail and the 3 Major Business Rules he gives at the end are all great.

I’m a reasonably expense-conscious person in the just post-college age range with a low income, but I am also quite active in pursuing media I enjoy (movies, tv shows, music, books). With so much available free online (illegally) I tend to only pay (whether by actually paying or by getting it through a medium that provides ad revenue directly to the creator) for around 1/3 of all the media I enjoy. Those are the songs by artists I like best and truly want to support, or the movies that I am so impressed with that I want to contribute to their box office take and that simplemindedly measured “success.” Following the second Long Tail Rule, I would be very happy to pay SOMETHING for almost everything I enjoy. Lowering the prices dramatically or providing a “pay what you feel” option would actually increase what I’m happy to pay pretty significantly. And I know this is totally anecdotal, but I feel like most of my peers have the same sentiment.

Does that sound about right to everyone else in the class? Would you pay at least something for everything if that was an option?

Democratizing Innovation echoes a lot of discussions/other readings we have had about the importance of having both the manufacturers and users able and willing to innovate. The phrase “Policy makers should be aware of ‘collateral damage’ that may be inflicted on user innovation by legislation aimed at other targets“ really summed it up well for me. As cliché as it is now, “thinking outside the box” is sometimes only possible when people have the ability to ignore the boundaries that create that box. This is something very difficult for major organizations or corporations to do, but easy for individuals. Unfortunately, with acts like SOPA even being proposed, we seem to be moving in to opposite direction of the more user-innovation focused world the chapter argues for.

And just briefly on the dot com crash: I’ve studied the housing bubble/foreclosure crisis quite a bit in the past few years, but was too young to really grasp what was happening with these comparably massive dot com crashes at the time. This look back was pretty jarring. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally had no knowledge al all of the dot-com bubble system. It seems to me that these bubbles were more of a financial scheme rather than a legally oriented invention. Creating something that people will invest in just because of the e- prefix or the .com at the end seems a bit naïve and risky but surprisingly enough many people fell for this and as a result some made money but the majority lost their funds and companies went bankrupt. I really enjoyed reading the Long Tail article. I never would have guessed that thanks to modern systems such as the internet and Amazon.com for example, old hits or even more surprisingly “misses” would turn out to be hits. I often noticed while buying merchandise on Amazon.com that at the bottom of the page it would show me related items and trends and I must admit that a few times while buying books or DVDs specifically, I have also bought related items suggested by Amazon. Another article that I enjoyed reading was the one Better than Free since I agree with the author and find myself in similar situations. I believe that most people emphasize one of the generatives rather than all eight of them. Personally I like having something immediately delivered to me rather than doing several searches for something that would take me time, and therefore I also agree with the Findability generative as well. I also enjoyed the last article and found it to be really accurate. Users looking for or in need of a certain device either continued with their lives without it or in the case of the article, built it or developed it themselves…the majority of inventions are user centered rather than discovered and developed by manufacturers . I personally think that some of the most important inventions took place because of the user’s need for a given device. Large corporations don’t usually see what people could use on an everyday basis but aim to invent spectacular devices in order to sell and make profits. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@AlexLe I wanted to reply to your question about paying at least something for everything if it's presented as an option. My husband and I developed a catchphrase while traveling that went something like, "Why won't you let me pay you??!!" Sometimes this had to do with things like trying to find a place where we could do (or pay someone to do) laundry but oftentimes it had to do with companies not getting their act together online. One classic (hypothetical, of course) example was when my husband wanted to read a particular comic book while we were in Malaysia. So he went to the publisher's website and searched for it. They didn't have any digital copies and print copies weren't available either (not that they would have been much use to him in Asia). So he then went "elsewhere" and found exactly what he was looking for. He even contemplated sending money directly to the author because he really liked the guy's work and wanted him to get something for his efforts. Generally speaking, we try to go through proper channels first but if those don't work, we'll take our business elsewhere.

To get a little Cluetrain Manifesto, companies are shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can sit back and dictate the terms of their relationships with consumers. Yes, the profit margins may be smaller to offer products online in easily reproducible formats, but companies are effectively putting themselves out of business by not acting as useful intermediaries. Kevin Kelly does a great job of highlighting the potential value-adds of intermediaries in "Better than Free", while Chris Anderson explores the significant profit opportunities available to companies that exploit the long tail. If companies invested as much time and energy in getting ahead of the on-demand media delivery curve as they did fighting for control of an antiquated relationship between producers and consumers that consumers are opting out of anyway, then those companies might actually have a shot of staying in business for the next five years. /rant
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 04:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Power of the Preview"

During high school, the internet was in its infancy. Therefore the accessibility of lesser-known artists to sell their songs/albums in the open market was limited. I have been involved in music throughout my life and a band’s path to creating a commercial album has been a challenging and structured process starting with signing up with a label, providing upfront costs for production, pressing CD's and so on. In this digital age where physical CD's are no longer required and home studio technology has advanced, the costs to produce an album are certainly less. While I am not familiar with popular music sites such as Rhapsody, I know that iTunes is quite accessible in allowing independent musicians sell their songs on their platform.

In addition to the algorithmic recommendations that have created the Long Tail, I also believe that the “preview” function is also vitally important. To hear a segment of a song is particularly powerful for the Long Tail effect (i.e. iTunes). Prior to the music digital media age, the only way that a listener could preview a more obscure band was by listening to the album through others or seeing live shows. Therefore consumers were less likely to pay full price for an entire album from a band that they were wholly unfamiliar with. However the ability for consumers to hear parts of songs has undoubtedly contributed to the Long Tail affect.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that the generative qualities immediacy, personalization, accessibility, and findability allow Youtube, online radio, and Netflix to become my main source for entertainment in the free copies world. I no longer depend on my TV, which had limited shows and a fixed schedule. On the contrary, I can basically find any video on Youtube and watch them for free. With a Youtube account, I can create a play list and watch my favorite videos at my convenience. I had also watched many seasons of America’s Next Top Model on Youtube for free.
I remember the days when I had to call into a local radio station to request them to play my favorite song. Now, I can just go on Youtube and watch/listen to my favorite songs. I also no longer feel the need to run to a store to buy a favorite CD or the need to purchase my favorite songs. I also appreciate the fact that I can stream my favorite local radio station online, even when I am out of the local range. Netflix is another example of a convenience source to access shows and movies instantly. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 04:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed the Technium article that mentioned the generative qualities that favor the consumer. Companies like Amazon and Wikipedia embody these qualities the most, with Amazon give us a great example of the Long Tail. As a superstore, Amazon has an incredible amount of adaptability and ability to connect buyers and sellers. Lots of items bought off Amazon are from other sellers they do business with so they are just connecting you to them. I do wish Kevin Kelly touched on advertising which he admittedly omitted. Perhaps he wanted to avoid the discussion of consumer versus producer driven demand and who shaped or steered these generative forces more. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The properties of generative innovation that von Hipple spoke of is quite eye opening, albeit not unexpected. The shift from manufacturing standards to user generative improvements reflects the long tail effect spoke of in the other articles. Unfortunately it seems as though most companies and manufacturers adhere to the antiquated principles of limitation. Von Hipple is quite clear when he states that many of the users and innovators seek a shift of the current legal precedents set through patent law and copyrights. As he noted, the physical world costs time, money, actual physical stuff to be modified. But in the virtual world, anything can be copied and modified without the need for physical items, or even R&D, since that can come through democratization of innovation. Because the virtual world inside computers allows for instant copying and modification, and since the internet allows for the instant communication and copying between systems, the long tail is not only enabled, but it allows for instant results at virtually no cost. But it is precisely because it is virtual and it avoids cost (or profit for that matter) that the application of laws and practices that rule a world of normal distribution don’t apply. Those laws apply to systems of manufacture in which it is difficult or costly to enable that manufacture. One in which all users can be grouped into large groups, instead of millions of small ones. As the world moves closer and closer to the singularity, the laws and rules of the physical world need to be modified in order to account for the virtual world, or new laws and regulations need to be made, ones which address the difficulties of controlling the long tail. And I don’t really see that happening because of the rights that would be infringed upon (freedom of speech, press, expression, et al.).[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way here is a link to "Free" by Chris Anderson: http://books.google.com/books?id=lLZbXN2odVYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q&f=false [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

New Economic Models

2012-02-14T21:00:56Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 14'''

The rise of the networked economy is changing economic possibilities around the world. From the call centers in India to eBay and the new Internet entrepreneurs, there are many signs that suggest a flatter world fueled by innovative production and marketing strategies. In this session, we will explore the promise and reality of the changing economic tides associated with rising Internet use including those marketing to the long tail and the new oligopolists.

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot-com Bubble]
* Chris Anderson, [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html The Long Tail]
* Kevin Kelly, [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Better than Free]
* Eric von Hippel:
** The Economics of Open Content Symposium: New Models of Creative Production in the Digital Age Collaboration and the Marketplace - '''Video stream of the 30-minute presentation: [http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel new improved link!]''' (requires [http://real.com/ RealPlayer]). See below for alternate links to the presentation in video and audio format.
** [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Democratizing Innovation, Chapter 8: Adapting Policy to User Innovation]

== Additional Resources==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail "Wikipedia Long Tail"]
* Free by Chris Anderson[http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?]
* Larry Lessig's [http://codev2.cc/ Code 2.0]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

What interested me more about the readings was the dot-com case and the high risk that these internet-based companies were taking. Even they knew that there could only be one network-effects winner in each sector, they continued with their strategy of “get large or get lost.” Also, they were not investing a few thousand dollars, but millions of them in a battle to remain in the dot-com business. As a result, only some large dot-com businesses remained, such as Amazon and eBay.

Also I enjoyed The Long Tail article because it explains a number of phenomena I think all in this class have experienced but sometimes were unaware of the causes. First, we were living in a Hit-driven culture, talking about the same movies or TV series at high school, but we knew little about foreign TV shows and movies. Part of this issue is what the East criticizes the West, because probably we know who is Lady Gaga but we don’t who wrote Le Tartuffe.

Thus, what I like about The Long Tail, and also part of the author’s conclusion, is that we are entering in a more diversified time, where not everybody listen the same songs, looks the same movies and read the same books. The more we find, the more we like.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have two thoughts relating this week's reading to the larger world.
The first is a re-synthesis of other ideas, in that the internet has not really so much created new things as it has amplified already existing phenomena. Media sharing has been around nearly as long as the media itself. In the 80's, the band Metallica encouraged fans to make copies of their music (on cassette tapes) and hand them out to friends. I remember my own friends and relatives trading albums on cassettes and mix tapes. My grandmother had a set up to easily copy VHS tapes at home. She would rent movies, and copy them for later. Certain movies that were more popular were often purchased, since it made them easier to find (my grandmother had a cataloging system, where every tape was numbered, with the movies that were on each tape listed both on the tape, and recorded in a notebook - just looking for the right tape cover was much easier), and better quality. Sure, the movie companies didn't make as much money as if she had bought all of the movies, but then again, she bought much more than she would have otherwise. The only real difference now, is that it is easier, more widespread, more exhaustive, and easier to see.

The second is that my wife and I often observe to each other that while companies are often most concerned about owning the most market share, or getting the largest profit per unit, what really should matter is if any individual thing is profitable. It is ok to have a portion of the business that is less profitable, so long as it is still is profitable in the first place. It doesn't matter if an individual item is hugely profitable, so long as once all the costs have been payed, the item makes money.
One example of this would be the breakdown of the starsplay/ netflix arangement. Stars Play wanted to deal with netflix like a cable company, making individuals who wanted the extra content pay separately for it. Netflix wanted to outright license the Stars Play content, rather than start a two tier pricing scheme. Because SP didn't want to compromise, there was no deal. I, for one, never intend on accessing SP content elsewhere (and certainly not paying for it), do not have a cable tv subscription that has access to it, and would not have paid extra for it if they had gotten netflix to budge. There are far too many interesting titles for me to watch that, while it might not be exactly what I wanted, costs me nothing additional. SP meanwhile, loses out on my little sliver of what netflix would have payed them. Sure, they wouldn't have made as much money per unit, but they would have made money they wouldn't have made otherwise.
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I really loved the Wired article and its point that this next era will be more about “misses” than “hits.” The internet and new technology remove almost all the related costs that created this all-or-nothing dichotomy; once I read it, it seems so obvious to realize that “misses” still can generate reasonable profits, just not ones that could overcome the expenses inherent in our older distribution systems (movie theater, an actual record store in a small town, etc.). The concept of the Long Tail and the 3 Major Business Rules he gives at the end are all great.

I’m a reasonably expense-conscious person in the just post-college age range with a low income, but I am also quite active in pursuing media I enjoy (movies, tv shows, music, books). With so much available free online (illegally) I tend to only pay (whether by actually paying or by getting it through a medium that provides ad revenue directly to the creator) for around 1/3 of all the media I enjoy. Those are the songs by artists I like best and truly want to support, or the movies that I am so impressed with that I want to contribute to their box office take and that simplemindedly measured “success.” Following the second Long Tail Rule, I would be very happy to pay SOMETHING for almost everything I enjoy. Lowering the prices dramatically or providing a “pay what you feel” option would actually increase what I’m happy to pay pretty significantly. And I know this is totally anecdotal, but I feel like most of my peers have the same sentiment.

Does that sound about right to everyone else in the class? Would you pay at least something for everything if that was an option?

Democratizing Innovation echoes a lot of discussions/other readings we have had about the importance of having both the manufacturers and users able and willing to innovate. The phrase “Policy makers should be aware of ‘collateral damage’ that may be inflicted on user innovation by legislation aimed at other targets“ really summed it up well for me. As cliché as it is now, “thinking outside the box” is sometimes only possible when people have the ability to ignore the boundaries that create that box. This is something very difficult for major organizations or corporations to do, but easy for individuals. Unfortunately, with acts like SOPA even being proposed, we seem to be moving in to opposite direction of the more user-innovation focused world the chapter argues for.

And just briefly on the dot com crash: I’ve studied the housing bubble/foreclosure crisis quite a bit in the past few years, but was too young to really grasp what was happening with these comparably massive dot com crashes at the time. This look back was pretty jarring. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally had no knowledge al all of the dot-com bubble system. It seems to me that these bubbles were more of a financial scheme rather than a legally oriented invention. Creating something that people will invest in just because of the e- prefix or the .com at the end seems a bit naïve and risky but surprisingly enough many people fell for this and as a result some made money but the majority lost their funds and companies went bankrupt. I really enjoyed reading the Long Tail article. I never would have guessed that thanks to modern systems such as the internet and Amazon.com for example, old hits or even more surprisingly “misses” would turn out to be hits. I often noticed while buying merchandise on Amazon.com that at the bottom of the page it would show me related items and trends and I must admit that a few times while buying books or DVDs specifically, I have also bought related items suggested by Amazon. Another article that I enjoyed reading was the one Better than Free since I agree with the author and find myself in similar situations. I believe that most people emphasize one of the generatives rather than all eight of them. Personally I like having something immediately delivered to me rather than doing several searches for something that would take me time, and therefore I also agree with the Findability generative as well. I also enjoyed the last article and found it to be really accurate. Users looking for or in need of a certain device either continued with their lives without it or in the case of the article, built it or developed it themselves…the majority of inventions are user centered rather than discovered and developed by manufacturers . I personally think that some of the most important inventions took place because of the user’s need for a given device. Large corporations don’t usually see what people could use on an everyday basis but aim to invent spectacular devices in order to sell and make profits. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@AlexLe I wanted to reply to your question about paying at least something for everything if it's presented as an option. My husband and I developed a catchphrase while traveling that went something like, "Why won't you let me pay you??!!" Sometimes this had to do with things like trying to find a place where we could do (or pay someone to do) laundry but oftentimes it had to do with companies not getting their act together online. One classic (hypothetical, of course) example was when my husband wanted to read a particular comic book while we were in Malaysia. So he went to the publisher's website and searched for it. They didn't have any digital copies and print copies weren't available either (not that they would have been much use to him in Asia). So he then went "elsewhere" and found exactly what he was looking for. He even contemplated sending money directly to the author because he really liked the guy's work and wanted him to get something for his efforts. Generally speaking, we try to go through proper channels first but if those don't work, we'll take our business elsewhere.

To get a little Cluetrain Manifesto, companies are shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can sit back and dictate the terms of their relationships with consumers. Yes, the profit margins may be smaller to offer products online in easily reproducible formats, but companies are effectively putting themselves out of business by not acting as useful intermediaries. Kevin Kelly does a great job of highlighting the potential value-adds of intermediaries in "Better than Free", while Chris Anderson explores the significant profit opportunities available to companies that exploit the long tail. If companies invested as much time and energy in getting ahead of the on-demand media delivery curve as they did fighting for control of an antiquated relationship between producers and consumers that consumers are opting out of anyway, then those companies might actually have a shot of staying in business for the next five years. /rant
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 04:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Power of the Preview"

During high school, the internet was in its infancy. Therefore the accessibility of lesser-known artists to sell their songs/albums in the open market was limited. I have been involved in music throughout my life and a band’s path to creating a commercial album has been a challenging and structured process starting with signing up with a label, providing upfront costs for production, pressing CD's and so on. In this digital age where physical CD's are no longer required and home studio technology has advanced, the costs to produce an album are certainly less. While I am not familiar with popular music sites such as Rhapsody, I know that iTunes is quite accessible in allowing independent musicians sell their songs on their platform.

In addition to the algorithmic recommendations that have created the Long Tail, I also believe that the “preview” function is also vitally important. To hear a segment of a song is particularly powerful for the Long Tail effect (i.e. iTunes). Prior to the music digital media age, the only way that a listener could preview a more obscure band was by listening to the album through others or seeing live shows. Therefore consumers were less likely to pay full price for an entire album from a band that they were wholly unfamiliar with. However the ability for consumers to hear parts of songs has undoubtedly contributed to the Long Tail affect.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that the generative qualities immediacy, personalization, accessibility, and findability allow Youtube, online radio, and Netflix to become my main source for entertainment in the free copies world. I no longer depend on my TV, which had limited shows and a fixed schedule. On the contrary, I can basically find any video on Youtube and watch them for free. With a Youtube account, I can create a play list and watch my favorite videos at my convenience. I had also watched many seasons of America’s Next Top Model on Youtube for free.
I remember the days when I had to call into a local radio station to request them to play my favorite song. Now, I can just go on Youtube and watch/listen to my favorite songs. I also no longer feel the need to run to a store to buy a favorite CD or the need to purchase my favorite songs. I also appreciate the fact that I can stream my favorite local radio station online, even when I am out of the local range. Netflix is another example of a convenience source to access shows and movies instantly. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 04:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed the Technium article that mentioned the generative qualities that favor the consumer. Companies like Amazon and Wikipedia embody these qualities the most, with Amazon give us a great example of the Long Tail. As a superstore, Amazon has an incredible amount of adaptability and ability to connect buyers and sellers. Lots of items bought off Amazon are from other sellers they do business with so they are just connecting you to them. I do wish Kevin Kelly touched on advertising which he admittedly omitted. Perhaps he wanted to avoid the discussion of consumer versus producer driven demand and who shaped or steered these generative forces more. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The properties of generative innovation that von Hipple spoke of is quite eye opening, albeit not unexpected. The shift from manufacturing standards to user generative improvements reflects the long tail effect spoke of in the other articles. Unfortunately it seems as though most companies and manufacturers adhere to the antiquated principles of limitation. Von Hipple is quite clear when he states that many of the users and innovators seek a shift of the current legal precedents set through patent law and copyrights. As he noted, the physical world costs time, money, actual physical stuff to be modified. But in the virtual world, anything can be copied and modified without the need for physical items, or even R&D, since that can come through democratization of innovation. Because the virtual world inside computers allows for instant copying and modification, and since the internet allows for the instant communication and copying between systems, the long tail is not only enabled, but it allows for instant results at virtually no cost. But it is precisely because it is virtual and it avoids cost (or profit for that matter) that the application of laws and practices that rule a world of normal distribution don’t apply. Those laws apply to systems of manufacture in which it is difficult or costly to enable that manufacture. One in which all users can be grouped into large groups, instead of millions of small ones. As the world moves closer and closer to the singularity, the laws and rules of the physical world need to be modified in order to account for the virtual world, or new laws and regulations need to be made, ones which address the difficulties of controlling the long tail. And I don’t really see that happening because of the rights that would be infringed upon (freedom of speech, press, expression, et al.).[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way here is a link to "Free" by Chris Anderson: http://books.google.com/books?id=lLZbXN2odVYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q&f=false [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Assignment 1 Submissions

2012-02-07T21:32:17Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment1.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (final deadline: Tuesday, February 7, 5:30pm ET).

''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

* Name:
* Link to rule: (the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Submissions===
Name: Fabiancelisj 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutique_hotel Boutique Hotel] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fabian_Assignment1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: BSK342 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Esserman Marc Esserman] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/?title=Image:Bsk342assignment0.pdf&oldid=7427 Assignment 1] 
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Harvard 212 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: Public Good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Harvard212_Assignment1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 12:09 EST, 7 February 2012

Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa M-Pesa] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Spring2012-BerkmanWikipediaAssignment1-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 17:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jeff Kimble 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_1.doc] 
[[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Abby Bergman 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Digital Divide in the PRC] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:WA_1_article.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956 United States presidential election, 1956] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio Operation Gladio] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: James Harris 
Rule:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Republican_primary,_2012 Florida Republican Primary, 2012] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Hope Solomon 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good] 
Report:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_-1.doc] 
[[User:Hds5]] 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

== Headline text ==

Name: Quynh Dang 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_cuisine Vietnamese Cuisine] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/QuynhDang_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 05:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jennifer W. Lopez 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change.org Change.org] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 08:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Julia Brav 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_knitting Finger Knitting] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: André Pase 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Calibur_V Soul Calibur V] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Andre_pase_assigment1.doc Assignment 1] 

Name: Priscila Lollo 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniella_Cicarelli Daniela Cicarelli] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Priscila_Lollo_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 

Name: David Taber 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war Culture War] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:David_Taber_Assignment_1.odt Assignment 1] 
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Marjolein Siegenthaler 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Netherlands Copyright Law of the Netherlands] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_1_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Carl Fleming 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fleming_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name:Nicholas Thibodeau 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: Public Good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech Free Speech] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:NJThibodeau_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Brendan Long 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hamilton_Gordon Albert Hamilton Gordon] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_1_-_Long%2C_Brendan.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_1_Samantha_Zakuto.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:szakuto]] 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Manuel Valerio 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire_plc] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:MValerio_assignment1.pdf] 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: TBaechel 
Rule: Citing Sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources] 
Article: St. John's College [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(United_States)] 
Report: Assignment 1: Wikipedia [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Johnny_Assignment1.doc] 
[[User:TBaechel]] 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC

Name: Just Johnny 
Rule: Ownership of Articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: Prince Harry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_harry] 
Report: Assignment 1: Wikipedia [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Baechel_Assignment_1_E120.pdf] 
[[User:Just Johnny]] 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Name''': Mike Brant

'''Rule''': Neutral Point of View [[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] ]]

'''Article''': One Laptop per Child [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC]

'''Report''':Mike Brant_ Assignment One [[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Mike_Brant_Assignment_One.doc.doc]]
[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Submissions

2012-02-07T21:30:16Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment1.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (final deadline: Tuesday, February 7, 5:30pm ET).

''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

* Name:
* Link to rule: (the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Submissions===
Name: Fabiancelisj 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutique_hotel Boutique Hotel] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fabian_Assignment1.doc Assignment 1] 

Name: BSK342 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Esserman Marc Esserman] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/?title=Image:Bsk342assignment0.pdf&oldid=7427 Assignment 1] 
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Harvard 212 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: Public Good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Harvard212_Assignment1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 12:09 EST, 7 February 2012

Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa M-Pesa] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Spring2012-BerkmanWikipediaAssignment1-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 17:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jeff Kimble 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_1.doc] 
[[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Abby Bergman 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Digital Divide in the PRC] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:WA_1_article.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956 United States presidential election, 1956] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio Operation Gladio] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: James Harris 
Rule:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Republican_primary,_2012 Florida Republican Primary, 2012] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:James_Harris_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Hope Solomon 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good] 
Report:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_-1.doc] 
[[User:Hds5]] 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

== Headline text ==

Name: Quynh Dang 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_cuisine Vietnamese Cuisine] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/QuynhDang_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 05:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jennifer W. Lopez 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change.org Change.org] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 08:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Julia Brav 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_knitting Finger Knitting] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: André Pase 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Calibur_V Soul Calibur V] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Andre_pase_assigment1.doc Assignment 1] 

Name: Priscila Lollo 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniella_Cicarelli Daniela Cicarelli] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Priscila_Lollo_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 

Name: David Taber 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war Culture War] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:David_Taber_Assignment_1.odt Assignment 1] 
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Marjolein Siegenthaler 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Netherlands Copyright Law of the Netherlands] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_1_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Carl Fleming 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Fleming_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name:Nicholas Thibodeau 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: Public Good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech Free Speech] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:NJThibodeau_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Brendan Long 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hamilton_Gordon Albert Hamilton Gordon] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/sites/is2012/images/Assignment_1_-_Long%2C_Brendan.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Assignment_1_Samantha_Zakuto.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:szakuto]] 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Manuel Valerio 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire_plc] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:MValerio_assignment1.pdf] 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: TBaechel 
Rule: Citing Sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources] 
Article: St. John's College [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(United_States)] 
Report: Assignment 1: Wikipedia [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Johnny_Assignment1.doc] 
[[User:TBaechel]] 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC

Name: Just Johnny 
Rule: Ownership of Articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: Prince Harry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_harry] 
Report: Assignment 1: Wikipedia [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Baechel_Assignment_1_E120.pdf] 
[[User:Just Johnny]] 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Name''': Mike Brant
'''Rule''': Neutral Point of View [[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] ]]

'''Article''': One Laptop per Child [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC]

'''Report''':Mike Brant_ Assignment One [[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2012/Image:Mike_Brant_Assignment_One.doc.doc]]
[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Fabian Assignment1.doc

2012-02-07T21:15:31Z

Fabiancelisj:

Regulating Speech Online

2012-02-07T20:57:26Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 7'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can "become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 884, 896-97 (1997). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, with the rise of web 2.0, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a national (and global) audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_1:_Wikipedia|Assignment 1]] due

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Parts I & II)
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230]
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy Wikipedia entry on ''Funding Evil''] (focus on "libel controversy" section)
* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 The SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU]
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689865 David Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law] (Part III)
</onlyinclude>

==Class Discussion ==
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/19/national/main20080685.shtml

During our last class we discussed the hacking group Anonymous. One of the concerns raised in the class addressed ramifications for hacking and the belief that these types of attacks are not pursued by law enforcement. As it turns out the FBI has been arresting members of this group and seizing their equipment. In addition to the written story there is a video interview (link above) of the self-proclaimed leader of Anonymous, Commander X, where he likens this groups activity to the sit-ins during protests in the 50’s and 60’s when the nation was advocating for civil rights.

Two (conflicting) thoughts:

1. I appreciate the analogy and disagree with the announcer who dismisses the likeness out-of-hand.

2. I would agree with the analogy if, indeed, each “request for information” were being initiated by a separate and distinct person exercising their individual right to voice their concern.

The CDA Section 230 is a very crucial starting point of discussion for nowadays legal online processes. As John Palfrey exposed, time has passed and different situations have happened since the creation of it, and it's likely that those who created it didn't anticipate the immunity provided by this document. Although I agree with Adam that Section 230 has been crucial to the success of the Internet, I feel inclined to support John Palfrey in his ideas of re-examine it. He provides strong arguments to support his ideas, saying for example that although it would be less speech and innovation opportunities, it is a trade-off that has to be made. Since in some cases it is relatively easy to change from an online distributor to a online publisher, shielding intermediaries, I think Section 230 has to be changed. Also, I like John Plalfrey's idea that the great innovation would be present, in terms of technical safety measures to protect kids. Although in the article he referred to kid's safety, I believe this idea can be extended to the other online legal discussions. [[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

These computers, servers, and platforms are designed to accommodate millions of simultaneous, legitimate, requests. I don’t believe that there are millions of Anonymous members initiating these requests, rather a handful of protesters mimicking multiple users. So in this case the analogy fails as “the people” are not adequately represented through a First Amendment protection to assemble. A more accurate analogy would be that two or three individuals went to Woolworths lunch counter to “sit-in” but each brought with them 150 manikins with made-up names, claiming that these were their friends in support. Lastly, I’m not sure that I completely buy the idea that their hacking methods are simply an overwhelming volume of requests for information. I believe that the method by which these attacks were initiated were a bit more technically complicated than that.[[User:Louiscelli|Louiscelli]] 13:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RE Louiscelli on Anonymous Article: As far as I know, the basic idea behind the attacks is no different than when any page receives a surge in traffic that crashes their servers. It's coordinated, yes, but so is any form of protest. If that is the case, then I see no problem with the basic idea. How it is carried out however, is much more likely to be troublesome. Again, so far as I know, a botnet attack would be the most likely form of attack. This involves basically conscripting other users computers for the attack. I'm sure there are many other ways to accomplish a similar effect, but I doubt any of them are anything I could approve of, short of installing massive server banks in your basement. Of course, I could be wrong on all counts here.

That leads me to a more general point, which is that whenever it comes to regulating speech online (or even in the real world, much of the time), I on one hand see why some want to tighten the restrictions around speech, at least on the extremes. On the other hand, I don't see any practical (or non-arbitrary) way of drawing a line, or any practical ways of enforcing it that aren't worse than what the restrictions would be seeking to stop. And then I also see the positives, even from information that supposedly "clearly" should not be available.

Take Wikileaks, for example. I can see why the Pentagon wanted to keep the data secret (especially in its raw form). I understand taking legal action against the person who illegally leaked the documents, since it is military law acting on military personnel, in marshal courts. On the other hand, I think that the availability of information on Wikileaks has been a great thing, especially in terms of the very real threat to government of ordinary people learning what is happening out of the public eye. Then, in a practical note, I don't see any way of censoring any part of the network without trampling on what makes it so important. First off, you have so many content generators (even down to tweets) that there's no possible way to get human eyes on every bit, or even any significant amount of, information that would be potentially censored under even the mildest restrictions. Machines don't do a great job at judgement. A computer can't tell the difference between a plot to blow up a government building and a discussion on how overblown fears of terrorism are causing us to lose our civil rights. Then on a more ethical line, there's always the question of who decides what the thresholds are.

On one hand, I see why the government would want to keep information secret; on the other, I don't think they can without stopping valuable whistle blowers. On one hand I realize that copyright holders want to protect their work; On the other, I see how even now, even the little bit of enforcement that is happening hinders fair use and legitimate access. On one hand, I agree that people should be able to sue malicious bloggers; on the other, I don't think bloggers should enjoy any less protection than any other publication. In the end, I just end up seeing the less restricted flow of information as far more beneficial than harmful, and the harms from less restriction as the least evil option. That was the conclusion I came to once again with this week's reading.
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Louiscelli, nice find on that article. I agree with you that it seems a bit disingenuous for hackers like Anonymous to claim that they have very broad protest-type support when in fact most of their major actions are committed by a small and central group. As a devil's advocate thought experiment though, is this simply a difference of opportunity? That is, it's physically easy for almost any person to walk into a diner and conduct a "sit-in" to support their views. It is physically (in terms of technical skill) much much harder to have the hacking skills necessary to do the things Anonymous has been doing. It seems possible that their protests are conducted by such a small group of people simply because those are all of the people who possess those skills, and not because those are all of the people who support the protest. From a purely social protest perspective, their point is no less theoretically valid simply because it is one that is hard to physically make.

From the readings, I really enjoyed the dialogue on online obscenity/CDA230/possible increased liability for online service providers; I found myself agreeing largely with Thierer that increased liability would be a bad Pandora's Box to open. Palfrey says that he agrees many cases would be brought from every conceivable direction if liability for providers was opened up wider, but he counters that most providers would be fully protected from liability even with the practices they follow now and extensive litigation could also have some positive effects as a motivator. My concern with this argument is that cases can be (and sometimes are) brought for bad reasons, knowing they will fail, but a plaintiff with massive wealth can still keep them alive almost indefinitely, at great expense (in time, money, and bad press)to the defendant. Especially in a clash between the wide-open individual innovation possible on the internet and various wealthy real world entities that have agendas to pursue, this sort of legal bullying could stifle all but the most established and wealthy internet innovators, seriously harming the most positive aspect of the internet.

Funding Evil's various details provided an interesting look at how the problem of different geography and law systems can become tangled up and sometimes abused when internet content is at issue. I'm very troubled by the idea that a wealthy individual or group could always create themselves some business interests in a country with very harsh libel standards and then use that as a basis to go after people online through that favorable court system. On a related international-type note, I'm amazed that I've never heard of SWIFT before or realized how thoroughly it controls information about the vast majority of global finance. Well done them for so successfully pursuing their goal of staying out of the headlines, and amazing that it was possible in this internet age. Don't want to turn this too political, but it amused me that American conservatives/Republicans were outraged at the NY Times publication of info about this network and how the U.S. was using it to track terrorist financing but not at all about SWIFT itself... Isn't a massive, monolithic, European entity that almost fully controls an entire aspect of life even for Americans the exact thing every Republican presidential candidate has been railing against when the subject is changed from "global finance" to "health care"? [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 19:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles we were asked to read for this week’s class were extremely interesting and got me thinking on several matters. As a student with a legal background and pursuing a Master’s degree in the field of law, the articles I read were very relevant to my field of study. I enjoyed reading about defamation and free speech in general but what really got me interested were the last three articles. The dialogue between John Palfrey and Adam Thierer regarding the regulation of online obscenity and protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act raised some very valid points on both sides. After reading the whole article I do however feel more close to the points raised by John Palfrey. I personally feel that even though Social Networks and other ISP are not responsible for what other people do in their sites, I feel that obscenity and other issues regarding minors especially would be limited if not eliminate if the site creators were not protected by the CDA. If they felt as if they could possibly be charged with a crime, I am sure that they would make their websites more secure and try to filter the usage of these websites by wrongdoers. For what concerns the Funding Evil article, I feel that the author should have been more careful in regards to her statements since nowadays even though a book, object or any other product is not sold outside a given country, thanks to the internet it is still possible to gain access to it. Her book wasn’t meant to be sold or published in the United Kingdom but somehow people did buy the book and in my opinion she should have thought of that earlier before writing defamatory statements about Mr. Mahfouz. By doing some research on the author I did find out that she is quite an expert on the matter and therefore I am sure there were valid reasons to back up her statements even though they were never proved. Writing something which doesn’t break the law in one country but does in another reminds me of the series of Danish cartoons designed a few years ago where Islam was made fun of, and the reactions that occurred from the middle east where such offense was a violation of their law. The Swift affair however was the most interesting article in my opinion because I was able to learn more about such system but also to learn about what was done by the CIA to fight terror. This summer while I was in a middle eastern country I had the pleasure to meet and spend a week with people from the Canadian Special Forces and some U.S. Government employees and we often talked about ways of fighting terrorism, especially in modern times. What we all agreed on was to eliminate the funds for terrorism by hitting the funders, therefore this article was really fascinating to me in order to understand how the CIA has been working on SWIFT databases in order to do so. What I don’t agree on, however is the fact that the US Government were only allowed to search terrorism cases. I don’t agree because I am confident that much funding is done through drug trafficking and arms dealing, especially since these limits have been publicized thanks to the media. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For Commander X liken his group’s activities to the “sit-ins” advocating for civil rights is a slap in our faces. There’s absolutely no connection between hacking no matter the cause and civil rights; If the deeds of Anonymous contained a shred of nobility, they would put their faces on media outlets, and their peers would cheer them on.
It is my opinion that Anonymous has other ulterior motives in what they do. I am happy to see that the FBI is up to speed with technology, where people and groups like Anonymous are arrested and hopefully prosecuted. Sophia February 6, 2012 10:30 (UTC)

The group Anonymous has been followed closely by law enforcement officials around the globe. In fact, on February 3, 2012, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryq1v-cLHrk Anonymous posted a conference call between the FBI and Scotland Yard] discussing the group’s members and the response by law enforcement. It seems there is an organized global campaign to identify and arrest Anonymous members that are participating in “hacktivism”.

A DDoS attack works by overloading servers and thus forcing them to become unresponsive. It is not that Anonymous has millions of followers sending these requests to various websites, but that Anonymous is mimicking legitimate requests. Anonymous uses an open source application called Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC) to accomplish DDOS attacks. Recently, a LOIC application has been written in JavaScript, allowing web browsers to run the software without any downloads. This allows Anonymous to use the resources of unsuspecting and non-committing users to accomplish their DDoS attacks.

This is what I believe to be the crux of the problem. That is, as a hacktivism organization, does Anonymous have the right to use unsuspecting Internet users to accomplish their goals? Anonymous likens their actions to sit-ins during the civil rights movement but everyone who sat in made the conscious choice to participate. That is not the case today with Anonymous.

Even though there is more skill required for a DDoS attack than participating in a sit-in as protestors did during the civil rights movement, I don’t think that knowledge barrier is a justification to take advantage of a user’s resources that are not actively protesting with your organization.

I don’t think that Anonymous would be as successful if they did not take advantage of other users not affiliated with their group. By definition of a DDoS, you need massive resources to take down a website. In contrast, a sit in can be effective with a handful of protestors.

While Anonymous needs the resources of others to have successful DDoS attacks, I don’t think that alone negates the activism they participate in. A successful DDoS requires massive resources. Without pooling bandwidth from multiple users, the DDoS would not be successful. The fact is that Anonymous acquired the bandwidth and directed it at targeted servers to participate in the activism they deem worthy. I don’t think we should claim that their group is any less of a protest organization because they don’t have the millions of members required to produce DDoS attacks. [[User:chrism|chrism]] February 7, 2012 19:33 UTC

While I had written a lengthy response to the Anonymous article, unfortunately, @chrism explained a lot of what I had written. However, let me go further and state that Anonymous is not the organization that it is purported to be. While tools like LOIC enable greater numbers to participate in DDoS attacks, each attack is not an organized effort. The members of Anonymous do not necessarily know one another, they do not have to speak the same language, nor even live in the same country. Any individual can be a member of Anonymous so long as they have a computer and an internet connection. The mechanics of their operation is fairly simple once understood. Using message board services like 4chan, individuals are able to anonymously suggest sites for attacks. Once a site is agreed upon, which usually relates to the suppression of freedom on the internet, such as PayPal, who gave in to the pressures of cutting off Wikileaks, or the MPAA and RIAA after MegaUpload went under, those anonymous individuals use an anonymizing services such as Tor, LOIC and others to make their attacks. Then someone somewhere uses the name Anonymous to claim the attack.

It's simple in its design, and since the internet is a globally connected community, members of Anonymous can live anywhere there is an internet connection, and do not necessarily have to be American. Even still further, members of Anonymous do not have to know one another, nor do they have to be experienced computer hackers, or for that matter, good at all with computers. They could be a thirteen year old kid who was shown how to use this basic program for simple executions, which might only appear to him as minute acts of vandalism. The repercussions of which, however, are far greater. But it still stand that the group known as Anonymous is a loosely based group of like-minded individuals from anywhere. The group is exceptionally fluid, and while Commander X claims he orchestrated attacks, in reality it was the collective consensus of unaffiliated individuals that made it happen, not some organized crime syndicate.

@chrism, while I do like what you have added, it needs to be clarified that a huge number of individual computers had to have been used for the DDoS attacks to be effective. I don't disagree that LOIC was used. But I wish to broaden my horizons to areas outside of the U.S. to the countries that would like to see American Corporations fail. I'm not suggesting that LOIC and DDoS attacks are orchestrated by foreign military cyber-warfare divisions, but I could see a bunch of Europeans or Asians not caring if an American corporation was taken out, so they go ahead and cooperate with the Anonymous attack. [[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I found the arguments between Palfrey and Thierer most interesting in this week’s readings. I agree with Palfrey that a hands-off approach to online security by the government is of concern. I feel that there should be more regulation to protect people’s privacy and child safety online. However, how and to what extent should we fiddle with Section 230? So, I am torn between these two views and also agree that online restriction would lead to less innovation. I think that the consumers, such as the parents, can take more initiative to monitor and protect their children’s online safety. For example, they can restrict a child from using Facebook if they feel that he/she may be harmed for visiting social networking sites. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 20:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2012-01-24T19:21:38Z

Fabiancelisj: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 24'''

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies?
In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace]

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders]

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet - Chapters 1 & 2]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
''The most significant changes and challenges brought on by digital technologies.''

With the spread of digital technologies there have been many changes in the social, cultural, political and economic aspects in the world. For example, in the social aspect, the necessity to be with others has been decreasing over time due to social media and smart devices. It comes to mind the now popular image of a group of people being together in a table but chatting in their smart phones, or the number of friends one can have from other countries. Likewise, in the political field we can say that the Internet propitiated the Arab Spring, helping countries in the Middle East like Egypt, Morocco and Libya to fight against their leaders. Finally, we have seen a cultural change in how people get informed and interpret information; before the digital technologies were part of our lives, people read only the local newspapers, but now people can read foreign newspapers, magazines, blogs and different sources of information, and judge by themselves whether inside their countries the news are being properly transmitted or not.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:RobF|RobF]] 14:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)'''</div>

The largest changes I see are in expectations and perceptions of the world, especially resulting from the amount of, and lack of standardization and quality controls on information available. I will use the hypothetical example of a car company to illustrate: Because there is so much information available on this hypothetical car company, anything that happens, whether good or bad, has the potential to be widely publicized. Let's say they have a part that failed on some cars, and instituted a recall. In the past, if this was a small issue, it could be done quietly. With the easy access to information, what was previously a small recall, only impacting a few customers (inevitable with such a complex product), it may make big news. Or it may go unnoticed in the flood of information available, even if it was in reality, rather serious. If a potential customer is trying to decide on a car to buy, they may learn of this recall, and have second thoughts. This may be for legitimate reasons, or it may be something that is not the company's fault, and possibly other companies the customer is considering may even be much worse. But, seeing this safety recall, and becoming concerned, the potential customer may now purchase a car from a competitor. The information in an improper context may give the customer a false impression. It may also be something that is not normally considered important. A dashboard gizmo may be something most car companies don't normally consider as important, and doesn't undergo as rigorous as testing. A simple recall, and the problem is a non-issue safety wise. But that's not how the customer perceives it. A similar example can be found in employers screening job applicants with a web search. If there are say, embarrassing photos found of the applicant at a party in college, this may seriously harm the applicant's chances. All the while, the other 4 applicants may have even worse pictures, but they simply don't come up to the top of the search results. These types of possibilities change both how we perceive the world, and what we expect out of entities in the world, because of the mere possibility of data being discovered. [[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 19:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think digital technologies' most significant effects so far have included fundamentally altering how people view themselves w/r/t society as a whole. Previously people viewed themselves as either being recognized or ignored by media that monopolized the civic discourse on many levels, now there are plenty of platforms for people to present themselves and be legitimated on their own terms. Tools and platforms for creating and distributing art (movies, music, podcasts etc.) certainly play a role in that, but so have social networking platforms, where folks can connect with other like-minded people and coordinate brick and mortar, face-to-face interactions (movie screenings, lectures, art shows, discussion groups, etc.)[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 04:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite the assigned articles we just read about some of the ways governments try to limit online activity and sharing, to me the most significant changes brought about by the spread of digital technologies are all related to freedom of information and the vast amount of information now accessible. This has political implications in both huge and radical ways (like the way Twitter is used as a organizing tool in many of the Arab Spring movements) and in smaller ways that fit within existing political structures but empower the average person much more (with the internet, I can check any American Senator's voting record, write a letter directly to my congresswoman, etc.). It also has cultural and social implications in the way ideas spread and are shared and altered. Regardless of where you are born or living, you can find people who hold almost any political/social/cultural/religious views online somewhere, and make that your primary community, rather than the one you physically live in. The sheer amount of information and connectedness made possible by the spread of digital technology are at the heart of most major changes based off that technology. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Freedom. Users have the ability to post any piece of information they wish using digital technologies. This platform is free and happens in real time causing an immediate impact. Put to good use these, digital technologies such as Twitter can connect high school friends in a matter of minutes. Likewise, the same communication method could be used to post a video bullying classmates for being different. The impact of both situations is immediate and with real consequences. The question remains how much policing is necessary to continue maintaining an accessible environment. HopeS 17:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Perfect enforcement" by the government utilizing the internet and the growing number of tethering devices is a an area of interest of mine. One would be wise to question the extent to which we are likely to be monitored by the government, knowingly or unknowingly, as technology grows. In addition, I am also interested in the drastic political change that social media is capable of spurring. I am interested in learning more about the extent to which governments may be involved, now and in the future. Lastly, I would like to explore potential innovative educational opportunities that may be created in developing nations with the advent of virtual classrooms and online academies. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace treats the internet as if it were a public good. However, it does not consider that the Internet is not free and therefore it can and will be regulated to a certain extent. Governments will seek to regulate the Internet on some issues, while corporations that subsidize news, Web content, and even access - via mobile devices will censor the net on other issues. The remaining "free space" of the Internet and pressure that the public at large can apply to advertisers and commercial interests that build out the infrastructure access to the web, is the space that will be left over for this utopian "social contract" that will enforce Web behavior. Demands for increased access and less regulation will be met with the challenges of governments and entities that will provide that infrastructure, perhaps shaping the Internet in a very different way, and this is what I see as the next big challenge of the digital age. ˜˜˜˜ Rberk2012 20:27 January 23, 2012

I believe the most significant change brought forth by the internet has been the globalization of the marketplace. First, firms now have the capacity to do business without any real barriers, and in real-time. A small business in Germany, for instance, can now conduct business with a small business in the United States. Communication barriers have been eliminated. Firms can communicate with each other cost-effectively and immediately through things like Skype/VOIP and email. This also holds true for the business-to-customer relationship with the substantial role eCommerce plays for the majority of the population. Secondly, I believe the dissemination of information is another significant change. Questions and curiosities that may have taken a vast amount of personal time and research can now be accessed almost instantaneously via a cell phone with apps like Wikipedia. Similarly, one can even attend school without ever stepping foot into a classroom. [[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

With digital technologies, access to information is available for everyone to access immediately. This can have both positive and negative consequences, depending on your vantage point. Consider WikiLeaks.org: For the government, it represents a gross breach of national security, but for concerned citizens, such organizations provide a public service, forcing the government to be more transparent. This raises a number of important questions regarding freedom of speech, privacy, regulatory controls, and even third parties on the web that host or store popular/unpopular content on their servers. Who has the authority to say what content is appropriate for public consumption? Anyone with access to the internet can publish anything they want, and unlike WikiLeaks, may make no attempt at redacting sensitive material. As Zittrain points out, the internet was designed to be “generative”; it was created to “accept any contribution”. Should the government have the power to censor such content, even if it stored outside of U.S. jurisdiction? If so, where does this censorship end? [[User:Joymiller|Joymiller]] 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Instant consumption of accessible information in an international context. Users have the ability to obtain as well as post unfiltered real-time data through an assortment of social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. As the speed of information increases through these media sources, it becomes more difficult to verify the legitimacy of these sites. Readers must process the unfiltered information analytically and are obligated to perform own due diligence. Big business and government have acknowledged the use of social media as a tool to create a more efficient marketing plan through sentiment analysis. [[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very interested in the digital divide from generational, economic, and geographic perspectives. When I was living in South Africa, the impact of slow, unreliable, and expensive Internet controlled by an entrenched monopoly had a very noticeable effect on my organization's ability to meet international expectations and on the degree to which people were willing and able to interact with new technologies. As certain regions blaze ahead digitally, it seems that other regions will only fall further behind the rapidly increasing expectations for connectivity, productivity, and innovation. I’m reminded of a section of Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion (which I admittedly haven’t read recently so apologies for mangling this) where he discusses a window in the the 1970s where Africa had an opportunity to be competitive with Asia in manufacturing and the textile industry but, missing its opportunity, was unable to find a competitive toehold later resulting in severe economic ramifications. I’m interested in exploring how disparities in opportunity and access can be addressed and how the egalitarian, democratic ideals of many Internet users can be leveraged to reach out to people who are currently excluded from the system. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The most significant changes brought on by digital technologies have been the increased ease-of-access to information around the world, the result of which has been a domino effect still taking place. The transfer of technology that is studied in economics, where a lesser developed country gains from the investment of a richer one, is taking place in the form of the spread of information around the world. This mass transfer has triggered milestone events in academics, economics, science and government. Significant challenges that may come from these rapidly developing technologies will be a divide on the interpretation of what they were developed for ("social" news vs traditional news media) and ultimately if they can be used to improve the quality of life for the majority of people. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 02:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the most significant changes that digital technologies brought on us, is how we access information we are looking for. In the past, we relied on books and libraries to provide us with any kind of information even though most of it was outdated, but today we can gain access to any type of information within minutes and information that is up to date and always updating. With this, of course we have noticed challenges it has given us. We cannot know what information is reliable, and which is not. [[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 11:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In the recent years, advances in the digital technologies have changed the world communicate and the way we live. Information are accessible at our palm. It has decrease the distance of time and space as communication is now very convenient with the creation of smartphones and the various social media people use to keep in touch with each other. We also moved from being passive consumers to active creators of news which were not available for us before. The interactions we experience through the technology also created a new common ground for us to understand different culture and people from all around the world. However, the advantages of these connections also bring into light many questions. For examples, how those informations are used and where to draw the line of privacy in regards to what we share. [[User:Selina2012|Selina2012]] 14:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that people’s lives have changed drastically over the past years because of the Internet. From my point of view, I don’t need to go out and buy a newspaper to know what is going on, but simply turn on my computer and go on Wikipedia or any news website. Another example concerns communication; I live in Italy and yet I can follow lectures and be enrolled in a degree program without having to physically be in the classroom. A few years ago I interned at the District Attorney’s Office, and among other duties I was asked to search for criminal history of certain suspects; what I thought would be a lengthy task, involving thousands of paper files, actually took me less than a minute by accessing a specific online database. In conclusion, I feel that digital technologies have made life easier and have allowed people with limited resources to gain knowledge by simply surfing the web. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Emanuele

While Arab Spring and Wikileaks immediately jump to mind when I think of major events and changes that were enabled by digital technologies, only recently did those events became a real force. While the freedom to immediately access an abundant amount of information (and information overload) in many countries is certainly a significant change brought on by digital technologies, the community should be seriously considered as well. I think our sense of community, for good and bad, has changed with the advent of digital technologies. You can be connected to so many people over the Internet in an instant and your community is independent of your geographical location. Examples include blogging, social platforms like Facebook, MMOs like WoW and Call of Duty, Quora, Reddit, and Internet Relay Chat (and tons more!). [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 05:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The most profound challenges visible today regarding the advent of dynamic digital technologies seems to be the wanton attempts at futilely regulating internet access and use, (e.g. Stop Online Piracy Act, [SOPA], Protect Intellectual Property Act, [PIPA]), and a topic that Cory Doctorow refers to as "The Coming War on General Computation" (a topic that the introduction of Jonathan Zittrain's book, which has conveniently been assigned as required reading for this course, hints at discussing in some depth). The debate on legislature like SOPA and PIPA arrives at a question quite familiar to the citizens of a post 9/11 society (Patriot Act, NDAA 2012), should individual freedoms, privacy, or constitutional rights be violated in the interest of the rights of copyright holders or government interests? The answer, it seems, should of course be no. The debate, however, is somehow being held on the floors of the United States Congress, and Senate. With regard to general purpose computers, the discussion circles around special purpose devices. Zittrain calls the iPhone and the XBox "sterile appliances tethered to a network of control." Perhaps he's right, as mobile devices recently took heat for hosting key logging/location monitoring software made to fit on your cute little smartphone by Carrier IQ. Similarly Sony took heat for prosecuting hacker George "Geohotz" Hotz and Alex Egorenkov "graf_chokolo" of "fail0verflow" for installing Linux onto the Playstation 3 after Sony removed their "Other OS" support. The topic under debate here, should individuals be able to use something they purchased in legal ways to do whatever they see fit? Ultimately the challenges we face are indicative of the greatest advent to come out of the Technological Revolution, the ability for individuals to disseminate information and rally support against corporate and government interests.

Doctorow, Cory. "The Coming War on General Computation" Keynote Speech 28c3 Conference 2011. Video. Web 1/24/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

Doctorow, Cory. "The Coming War on General Computation" Keynote Speech 28c3 Conference 2011 Transcript. Web 1/24/2012.

https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md

Kravets, David. "Carrier IQ Explains Secret Monitoring Software to FTC, FCC" Wired 14 Dec 2011. Web 1/24/2012.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/carrieriq-ftc-fcc/

Wikipedia. "Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz." Web 1/24/2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America_v._George_Hotz

Zittrain, Jonathan ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It.'' Introduction. 2008 Yale University Press. HTML Version. Web 1/24/2012.

http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/6

[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that digital technologies have increased the pace of life. For instance, a letter sent by original mail takes much longer to receive than one sent by email. This means that you can (and are expected to) reply much sooner too. Further, I think that digital technologies require a different set of skills for various professions. I am originally from The Netherlands and used to be a lawyer there. I find that it is not not only important how much you know, but also how fast you can find something, e.g. case law, rules and regulations or any informaton about a person or a company. The internet, but also various other (digital) databases, have made the latter much easier. The ability to use these digital technologies have become very important. Digital technologies have also a big impact on maintaining relationships. I live and have lived on another continent and in a different time zone for almost two years now, but thanks to Skype, Facebook, Linkedin, Whatsapp and email, I am still very much involved in and informed on the lives of my friends, family and former colleagues overseas.[[User:Marjolein Siegenthaler|Marjolein Siegenthaler]] 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In the social sphere, I would say that digital technology has brought people closer together because it is so much easier to communicate by email. There are even fast and, it seems, often successful services for mates to find each other.
In all of the social, cultural, and political areas, I think it is easier to sway the masses with trends and fashions, and many people easily follow along with whatever is portrayed as the in thing. News reaches people more quickly, and can easily be manipulated, depending on who is in control of the media. On the other side of the coin, social media such as Face Book, Skype, and Youtube make it possible for many opinions to be aired publicly, not only the voice of the news media. These capabilities were not so readily available before the spread of digital technologies.
Trade and commerce can be transacted much more quickly than ever before over the internet.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be quite remiss if I did not mention the numerous freedoms that digital technology, the internet included, provides. Not only is communication enabled on a greater, more accessible, real-time platform, but also the freedom of the content of that communication. While these freedoms have granted exceptional benefits, ranging from market-level trading (as is done between the European, East Asian, and American Markets), to revolutionary movements (the Arab Spring), they also come with drawbacks. These drawbacks are based upon the legal standing of communication in those countries where it can be an issue. Once digital technology is broken down to its basic form, it is merely a means of communication, no different than a print newspaper, a poster board, a phonograph, or a TV or radio signal. All of these forms of communication have limits on their communication, either through decency laws, copyright protection, or FCC regulation. The internet, or any digital medium for that matter, does not necessarily fall under a specific, current legal code, particularly because of the anonymity of the internet, including the anonymity of nationality. Unfortunately old legislation that is applied to current digital medium was written for tangible, real items, rather than virtual items as a digital medium. This creates the problem of controlling or regulating that medium to conform to established standards for non-digital medium, and unfortunately, that is increasingly difficult given the propensity of the digital world to exist outside of borders, and outside of jurisdictions.[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To even begin to quantify the changes that technology has brought to our lives, good and bad, would be an enormous task. But, from a largely legal perspective, I would say that the greatest change in our societies and lives is our understanding of privacy. For ever piece of digital technology that we enjoy there are potential losses to our privacy. Right at this moment I am withing three feet of three different machines that could be used to not only track my location at any time, but could also be monitored to trove my emails, text messages, and phone calls. These "not really consented to" examples are only one aspect. In addition, we now live in a time when even the privacy afforded by something being in the past is lost. How many 15 year old girls out there will post racy pictures of themselves on facebook or tweet idiotic nonsense and have it reappear in decades to come because of the potentially indelible nature of the internet and all information fed to it. Also, we live in a time when almost any aspect of a person's life could be affected by their credit score, but it is at greater risk of violation than s preacher's daughter with a six pack. All our money and personal information is becoming virtual, yet there is no real protection against that being used; if someone wants it they will get it. It worries me that the risk of all this change in legal privacy is not entirely a reality to us yet.
[[User:Cmartis|Cmartis]] 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)