Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2012-01-30T02:48:56Z

Joymiller:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''January 31'''

Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's -- we need to answer the critical question of '''how.''' Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to ''understand'' what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought.

This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (Read pages 379-396. The rest of this chapter expands the discussions of each layer in more detail, if you want to read more about them)

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet, Chapter 4,The Generative Pattern]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 7, What Things Regulate]

== Optional Readings ==

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

For people interested in a more technical primer on the architecture of the web, how email works, etc. check out ethan zuckerman and andrew mclaughlin's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

== Class Discussion ==

Not sure this is exactly how we're supposed to use this section, but I though I'd post a few of my thoughts on the readings for comment and discussion, and I'd love any criticism since I'm not someone with much of a background at all in these areas:

The point in Benkler about Lessig's "Principle of Bovinity" highlighted one of the most interesting aspects of the readings to me: How easy it is to fall into the trap of oversimplifying and assuming that a lot of these issues of control and technology boil down to what will be a recognizable total victory for one side and total defeat for the other. The ratio of creators of technology to consumers does not have to become fully in favor of the business/government creators in order for them to win; it just has to get close enough, resulting in a herd of consumers who are unable to break out of their pattern of accepting technologies exactly as they are when purchased. This reduces the generativity (from Zittrain) that can produce the sort of unanticipated evolutions and improvements that drive technology and innovation forward, often in ways that are more to the benefit of the public than to the groups who are trying to impose their specific type of control.

Indirect and hidden regulation of how these technological resources are used is troubling not only because it (obviously) attempts to stifle this sort of unintentional and often subversive innovation but also because it (less obviously) has a major effect that we often cannot easily perceive on the forces that control our interactions and creations online (law/norms/architecture/market/etc., from Lessig). None of those forces exist in a vacuum. So, not only is one possible outcome to the current technological/cultural upheaval a victory for the strictly control-oriented creators where the majority of people become simple consumers, it is quite possible that many will not even notice the driving factor behind that change. As someone who isn't very adept at using the internet as a creator anyway, that was a troubling conclusion for me.

On a mostly unrelated note, the other most interesting aspect of the readings for me came in Zittrain, where he noted that while the PC and Internet are almost endlessly adaptable, we have often been dealing with problems by making the problems RELATIVELY smaller, and not actually in any way solved (his examples being increased bandwidth for ISPs to deal with spam and more computing cycles for PCs to deal with malware). This reminded me of a presentation I just saw that was given by the head of the EPA for the New England region. He pointed out that for the last 30 years or so, the EPA was solving problems with an equal level of total disregard for sustainability. If water was dirty, create a water plant to purify it, and who cares how much power that takes! It is only in the last few years that a realization has really taken hold that we are unsustainably wasting energy, even in the pursuit of worthwhile results. Now, for example, some purifying plants are being powered by solar, not coal, with the same direct results (pure water) and much better side benefits (no pollution, endlessly renewable resource). Early on in any new field or technology, it is easy to simply minimize and defer issues, but that practice is never sustainable, and a day will come when specific problems actually have to be solved. It would be nice if we could all do ourselves a favor and reach that point voluntarily for internet/computing, and not through necessity. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciated Benkler’s exploration of how the "industrial producers of information" have a vested commercial interest in controlling information and communication at the expense of the commons, and how the US Government’s focus has been on restricting freedoms as opposed to upholding rights (Lessig). To appropriate language from the 9/11 Commission Report [http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm], many Internet users believe the “need to share” trumps the “need to know”, which is disruptive to the off-line status quo that clearly delineates between producers and consumers.

The idea of “need to share” also has important tie-ins to innovation and collaboration, two benefits of an unrestricted (or minimally restricted) Internet that are currently threatened. Benkler questions the concept of innovation based on exclusive rights as opposed to innovation from commons- and services-based sources, and the legal framework for valuing the former over the latter. Additionally, to mash-up Zittrain and Lessig, the features and benefits of a “generative” system - leverage, adaptability, ease of mastery, and transferability - can be seriously constrained by the interaction of law, social norms, the market, and architecture on users.

All of this leads me to wonder why more companies don’t see disruption as opportunity rather than a crisis. The marketplace is clearly communicating to them that their current model is headed for obsolescence and that this might be a great opportunity to build on some of the ideas and innovations already floating around. It’s also interesting to me that the US’s “capitalist” system seems more willing to protect current industry leaders than to step back and permit a true competition over ideas and users in the marketplace.

@AlexLE Thanks for bringing up the insidious impact that a lack of accountability/transparency can have on "law/norms/architecture/market." There were so many great topics in this week's readings - looking forward to discussing them in class.
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I enjoyed reading Zittrain’s discussion of generativity, which he defined in terms of “unfiltered contributions” from a wide-range of diverse audiences leading to “unanticipated change”.

Especially interesting was his discussion of the “generative pattern,” which demonstrates how an idea, such as Wordpress blogging software (which I use daily), can start in relative obscurity. When first launched, it was only partially developed, yet it was put out on the internet for others to use (and fix later, another use of the procrastination principle). As with other open source projects like OpenOffice, contribution to the Wordpress community is encouraged, which results in even greater use. According to the Wordpress developer's site, updates to the software are made nearly every single day.

As with other generative software, when Wordpress was launched, no one could have foreseen the “unanticipated change” brought about by the widespread use of this blogging software. But, as with other generative technologies, people new to the neighborhood have started abusing the "openness" of the system. One such example is the wide-spread use of Wordpress software (free, easy to use) to host spam sites and scraper websites. To help curtail these abuses, the Wordpress community created an easy form for people to report spammers (http://en.wordpress.com/report-spam/). This is just one example of the Wordpress community’s attempt to curtail abuse. Another issue frequently discussed on Wordpress forums is the unreliability of many plug-ins created by amateur developers. Trusting users (such as myself) have discovered the hard way that installing a Wordpress plugin can have a catastrophic impact on your blog (the dreaded socket error). Undoubtedly, according to Zittrain's concept of a generative pattern, there will be more and more movement towards “enclosure” in the Wordpress community to prevent such abuses going forward.

Lessig’s discussion of the four types of regulation and their interdependence was also enlightening. Clearly, undesirable behavior on the internet can be curtailed by more than one means. Of course, this brings SOPA and PIPA legislation to mind, making one wonder if there is a better way to attain the same goal without directly threatening punishment for the undesirable behavior.

Perhaps an indirect approach, for example, altering the social norm, could be just as effective. For many Americans, sharing software and music is seen as perfectly acceptable behavior. People like to share things they enjoy with other people. However, if doing so becomes unacceptable in the eyes of most Americans, overall behavior would start to change. Clearly, this is a complex issue, but Lessig does an excellent job of communicating alternatives to direct legislation, which often has far-reaching consequences, far beyond the original scope of what was intended by the law. [[User:Joymiller|Joymiller]] 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2012-01-30T02:37:59Z

Joymiller:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''January 31'''

Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's -- we need to answer the critical question of '''how.''' Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to ''understand'' what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought.

This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (Read pages 379-396. The rest of this chapter expands the discussions of each layer in more detail, if you want to read more about them)

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet, Chapter 4,The Generative Pattern]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 7, What Things Regulate]

== Optional Readings ==

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

For people interested in a more technical primer on the architecture of the web, how email works, etc. check out ethan zuckerman and andrew mclaughlin's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

== Class Discussion ==

Not sure this is exactly how we're supposed to use this section, but I though I'd post a few of my thoughts on the readings for comment and discussion, and I'd love any criticism since I'm not someone with much of a background at all in these areas:

The point in Benkler about Lessig's "Principle of Bovinity" highlighted one of the most interesting aspects of the readings to me: How easy it is to fall into the trap of oversimplifying and assuming that a lot of these issues of control and technology boil down to what will be a recognizable total victory for one side and total defeat for the other. The ratio of creators of technology to consumers does not have to become fully in favor of the business/government creators in order for them to win; it just has to get close enough, resulting in a herd of consumers who are unable to break out of their pattern of accepting technologies exactly as they are when purchased. This reduces the generativity (from Zittrain) that can produce the sort of unanticipated evolutions and improvements that drive technology and innovation forward, often in ways that are more to the benefit of the public than to the groups who are trying to impose their specific type of control.

Indirect and hidden regulation of how these technological resources are used is troubling not only because it (obviously) attempts to stifle this sort of unintentional and often subversive innovation but also because it (less obviously) has a major effect that we often cannot easily perceive on the forces that control our interactions and creations online (law/norms/architecture/market/etc., from Lessig). None of those forces exist in a vacuum. So, not only is one possible outcome to the current technological/cultural upheaval a victory for the strictly control-oriented creators where the majority of people become simple consumers, it is quite possible that many will not even notice the driving factor behind that change. As someone who isn't very adept at using the internet as a creator anyway, that was a troubling conclusion for me.

On a mostly unrelated note, the other most interesting aspect of the readings for me came in Zittrain, where he noted that while the PC and Internet are almost endlessly adaptable, we have often been dealing with problems by making the problems RELATIVELY smaller, and not actually in any way solved (his examples being increased bandwidth for ISPs to deal with spam and more computing cycles for PCs to deal with malware). This reminded me of a presentation I just saw that was given by the head of the EPA for the New England region. He pointed out that for the last 30 years or so, the EPA was solving problems with an equal level of total disregard for sustainability. If water was dirty, create a water plant to purify it, and who cares how much power that takes! It is only in the last few years that a realization has really taken hold that we are unsustainably wasting energy, even in the pursuit of worthwhile results. Now, for example, some purifying plants are being powered by solar, not coal, with the same direct results (pure water) and much better side benefits (no pollution, endlessly renewable resource). Early on in any new field or technology, it is easy to simply minimize and defer issues, but that practice is never sustainable, and a day will come when specific problems actually have to be solved. It would be nice if we could all do ourselves a favor and reach that point voluntarily for internet/computing, and not through necessity. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciated Benkler’s exploration of how the "industrial producers of information" have a vested commercial interest in controlling information and communication at the expense of the commons, and how the US Government’s focus has been on restricting freedoms as opposed to upholding rights (Lessig). To appropriate language from the 9/11 Commission Report [http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm], many Internet users believe the “need to share” trumps the “need to know”, which is disruptive to the off-line status quo that clearly delineates between producers and consumers.

The idea of “need to share” also has important tie-ins to innovation and collaboration, two benefits of an unrestricted (or minimally restricted) Internet that are currently threatened. Benkler questions the concept of innovation based on exclusive rights as opposed to innovation from commons- and services-based sources, and the legal framework for valuing the former over the latter. Additionally, to mash-up Zittrain and Lessig, the features and benefits of a “generative” system - leverage, adaptability, ease of mastery, and transferability - can be seriously constrained by the interaction of law, social norms, the market, and architecture on users.

All of this leads me to wonder why more companies don’t see disruption as opportunity rather than a crisis. The marketplace is clearly communicating to them that their current model is headed for obsolescence and that this might be a great opportunity to build on some of the ideas and innovations already floating around. It’s also interesting to me that the US’s “capitalist” system seems more willing to protect current industry leaders than to step back and permit a true competition over ideas and users in the marketplace.

@AlexLE Thanks for bringing up the insidious impact that a lack of accountability/transparency can have on "law/norms/architecture/market." There were so many great topics in this week's readings - looking forward to discussing them in class.
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I enjoyed reading Zittrain’s discussion of generativity, which he defined in terms of “unfiltered contributions” from a wide-range of diverse audiences leading to “unanticipated change”. Especially interesting was his discussion of the “generative pattern,” which demonstrates how an idea, such as Wordpress blogging software, can start in relative obscurity. When first launched, it was only partially developed, yet it was put out on the internet for others to use. As with other open source projects like OpenOffice, contribution to the Wordpress community is encouraged, which results in even greater use.

As with other generative software, when Wordpress was launched, no one could have foreseen the “unanticipated change” brought about by the widespread use of this blogging software. But, as with other generative technologies, people new to the neighborhood have started abusing the openness of the system.

One such example is the wide-spread use of Wordpress software (free, easy to use) to host spam sites and scraper websites. To help curtail these abuses, the Wordpress community created an easy form for people to report spammers (http://en.wordpress.com/report-spam/). This is just one example of the Wordpress community’s attempt to curtail abuse. Undoubtedly, there will be more and more movement towards “enclosure” in the Wordpress community to prevent such abuses going forward.

Lessig’s discussion of the four types of regulation and their interdependence was also enlightening. Clearly, undesirable behavior on the internet can be curtailed by more than one means. Of course, this brings SOPA and PIPA legislation to mind, making one wonder if there is a better way to attain the same goal without directly threatening punishment for the undesirable behavior.

Perhaps an indirect approach, for example, altering the social norm, could be just as effective. For many Americans, sharing software and music is seen as perfectly acceptable behavior. People like to share things they enjoy with other people. However, if doing so becomes unacceptable in the eyes of most Americans, overall behavior would start to change. Clearly, this is a complex issue, but Lessig does an excellent job of communicating alternatives to direct legislation, which often has far-reaching consequences, far beyond the original scope of what was intended by the law. [[User:Joymiller|Joymiller]] 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2012-01-24T02:14:43Z

Joymiller: /* 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.''

- Your ideas here...

<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>

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)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2012-01-24T02:14:17Z

Joymiller: /* 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.''

- Your ideas here...

<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>

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)