Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction - Revision history

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-04-05T04:20:23Z

Class Discussion

Show changes

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-04-05T03:40:50Z

Class Discussion

Show changes

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-04-05T03:15:17Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:15, 5 April 2012
Line 35:		Line 35:

	It is a common sense to claim that internet has allowed an easy access to knowledge to potentially everyone. However, I feel that Internet has not still created the big bang expected. I think that digital technologies did not bring yet the expected revolution in terms of solidarity among people, social equity, spread of democracy, etc. For instance, there is no excellent education system on line for free; there is no solidarity network in place, etc. Social media have participated to the Revolution in Tunisia among other but with no certainty about the emergence of democracy. Maybe, the biggest change could be noticed in the financial world where worldwide trading is now possible. But, as for the life improvement of the human beings nothing remarkable has emerged. People who may need the most digital technologies are still apart from them even in the western developed part of the world.--[[User:Sab\|Sab]] 11:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)		It is a common sense to claim that internet has allowed an easy access to knowledge to potentially everyone. However, I feel that Internet has not still created the big bang expected. I think that digital technologies did not bring yet the expected revolution in terms of solidarity among people, social equity, spread of democracy, etc. For instance, there is no excellent education system on line for free; there is no solidarity network in place, etc. Social media have participated to the Revolution in Tunisia among other but with no certainty about the emergence of democracy. Maybe, the biggest change could be noticed in the financial world where worldwide trading is now possible. But, as for the life improvement of the human beings nothing remarkable has emerged. People who may need the most digital technologies are still apart from them even in the western developed part of the world.--[[User:Sab\|Sab]] 11:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

			@Sab: THX SAB I agree that the internet has a bit more to go. It's only been around for a short while now. Just what is the revolution is perhaps the question? [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


	What comes to mind immediately is the use of Twitter and Facebook with regards to the Arab Springs and Occupy movements. Economically, the 2010 "flash crash" and dynamics behind with regards to global economies are of significance. Also, as cloud computing is becoming more abundant, I wonder what role it will play with regards to this spectrum. [[User:Mvalerio\|Mvalerio]] 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)		What comes to mind immediately is the use of Twitter and Facebook with regards to the Arab Springs and Occupy movements. Economically, the 2010 "flash crash" and dynamics behind with regards to global economies are of significance. Also, as cloud computing is becoming more abundant, I wonder what role it will play with regards to this spectrum. [[User:Mvalerio\|Mvalerio]] 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

			@Mvalerio: Interesting comment on the occupy movement. I don't think the protests would have been as large without the internet. I noticed the local meida downplayed the protests. So, I take it as a social experiment, probably spawned by policy makers to test for echo. Progress seems to be working. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


	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)		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)

			@Fabiancelisj: I notice that even with the rise of the internet, websites do act like local media. For example, if I am using Netflix, shopping at Wal-Mart, eating at Subway, using Facebook and Windows, then it really doesn't matter where I am in the world. My data is still treated like I was in Boston, MA. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


	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)		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)

			@BlakeGeno: Interesting point about globalization. I also think that the internet is working to "format" the globe. But in a positive way. So, even in poverty stricken neighbourhoods children are using websites such as Facebook to bridge the gaps between cultures. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 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)		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)

			@Taber: Yes. Blogs are great in allowing people to express themselves. Also, websites allow people to be who they want to be. And being able to connect with like-mined people is a great thing as well. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 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)		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)

			@AlexLE: As freedom of information becomes avilable to citizens, I think that this becomes an added benefit for society. When it comes to corporations sharing information, then we don't always know what is out there. If only there were a stronger universal standard. For example, wehn I go to a box store they want a lot of information. What I buy, or rent is all there. But, getting a hold of this information can be a challenge. Updating it, or requesting information to be removed can also be a challenging thing. Governments seem to allow citizens great control of their personal information. However, corporations are another thing. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 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)		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)

			@HopeS: Yes, users are allowed to post whatever they want to. However, it is becoming the norm to post more and more. And, if you don't then you are coerced. So, this is a juxtaposition of freedom. If I am forced to give up information in order to be cool, and otherwise nobody wants to talk to me, then that's not a good thing for freedom. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 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)		"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		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

Sab: /* Class Discussion */

2012-03-01T11:41:26Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 1 March 2012
Line 32:		Line 32:

	<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>		<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>


			It is a common sense to claim that internet has allowed an easy access to knowledge to potentially everyone. However, I feel that Internet has not still created the big bang expected. I think that digital technologies did not bring yet the expected revolution in terms of solidarity among people, social equity, spread of democracy, etc. For instance, there is no excellent education system on line for free; there is no solidarity network in place, etc. Social media have participated to the Revolution in Tunisia among other but with no certainty about the emergence of democracy. Maybe, the biggest change could be noticed in the financial world where worldwide trading is now possible. But, as for the life improvement of the human beings nothing remarkable has emerged. People who may need the most digital technologies are still apart from them even in the western developed part of the world.--[[User:Sab\|Sab]] 11:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-01-31T20:04:58Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 31 January 2012
Line 130:		Line 130:
	But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

	I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of privacy, freedom, and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. Advertisements, in general, along with other media, can be used to control or sway the thoughts of an individual. And this can be used in combination with a persons likes and dislikes, and general whereabouts, so on and so forth. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very ~~scary~~ issue particularly when we mention human rights. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of privacy, freedom, and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. Advertisements, in general, along with other media, can be used to control or sway the thoughts of an individual. And this can be used in combination with a persons likes and dislikes, and general whereabouts, so on and so forth. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very crucial issue particularly when we mention human rights. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-01-31T19:49:56Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 31 January 2012
Line 130:		Line 130:
	But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

	I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of privacy, freedom, and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. Advertisements, in general, along with other media, can be used to control or sway the thoughts of an individual. And this can be used in combination with a persons likes and dislikes, and general whereabouts, so on and so forth. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very scary issue particularly when we ~~are talking about~~ human rights. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of privacy, freedom, and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. Advertisements, in general, along with other media, can be used to control or sway the thoughts of an individual. And this can be used in combination with a persons likes and dislikes, and general whereabouts, so on and so forth. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very scary issue particularly when we mention human rights. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-01-31T19:45:06Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 31 January 2012
Line 130:		Line 130:
	But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

	I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of privacy, freedom, and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. Advertisements, in general, along with other media, can be used to control the thoughts of an individual. And this can be used in combination with a persons likes and dislikes, and general whereabouts, so on and so forth. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very scary issue particularly when we are talking about human rights. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of privacy, freedom, and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. Advertisements, in general, along with other media, can be used to control or sway the thoughts of an individual. And this can be used in combination with a persons likes and dislikes, and general whereabouts, so on and so forth. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very scary issue particularly when we are talking about human rights. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-01-31T19:43:46Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 31 January 2012
Line 130:		Line 130:
	But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

	I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of freedom and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very scary issue particularly when we are talking about human rights. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 19:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of privacy, freedom, and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. Advertisements, in general, along with other media, can be used to control the thoughts of an individual. And this can be used in combination with a persons likes and dislikes, and general whereabouts, so on and so forth. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very scary issue particularly when we are talking about human rights. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just Johnny: /* Class Discussion */

2012-01-31T19:34:38Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:34, 31 January 2012
Line 129:		Line 129:

	But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

			I think that one of the most significant challenges, and also what we have yet to see, is that we do not completely understand just what is happening to society through these new technologies. We do not know where we are heading. Although, I could say that with each new generation we are becoming dumber. I notice that impressionable children, in particular, of the XBox and iPod period seem to be programmed to respond to strong advertisement quite well, and have less of an ability to think for themselves. They seem to depend more on their peers to make decisions. Facebook, in particular, seems to be heading this trend and plays a vital role in this process. And I think that what this is doing to our minds is changing culture significantly. So, I see this as being probably the most significant challenge. Other challenges would mostly stem from that. And I think that the loss of freedom and surveillance is an issue that stems from this. If anyone wants to track a person using Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, they can do so. And so, this becomes an issue when we are talking about coercion – particularly through government implementation. Dissidents, freedom fighters, and free thinkers can be sought out and eliminated. And so this becomes a very scary issue particularly when we are talking about human rights. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 19:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Michaels: /* Class Discussion */

2012-01-31T06:04:38Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:04, 31 January 2012
Line 124:		Line 124:

	One of the noteworthy socio-culture change by digital technologies is that it has brought brought the world closer to each other. There is more appreciation of differences in societies and culture through sharing of news and knowledge by internet and media. A person sitting in Asia is now more aware of western culture than he/she was 20 years ago. Politically, it has helped get more information about the political figures - both good and bad information. Politicians in turn can reach out to more people through emails,twitter and social online networks. From the perspective of economy, it has started the whole wave of globalization and off shoring. And through that wave, it has indirectly, increased per capita income of people in developing countries. For example, Brazil, Russia, India and China have been a big beneficiary. It has created some new challenges as well. It has become easier for people to hurt companies and governments through hacking. Terrorist can connect with each other more easily. It is easy to spread unrest in a country through online networks. This unrest can be viewed as positive or negative impact depending upon your political beliefs. [[User:Pgaur\|Pgaur]] 04:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)		One of the noteworthy socio-culture change by digital technologies is that it has brought brought the world closer to each other. There is more appreciation of differences in societies and culture through sharing of news and knowledge by internet and media. A person sitting in Asia is now more aware of western culture than he/she was 20 years ago. Politically, it has helped get more information about the political figures - both good and bad information. Politicians in turn can reach out to more people through emails,twitter and social online networks. From the perspective of economy, it has started the whole wave of globalization and off shoring. And through that wave, it has indirectly, increased per capita income of people in developing countries. For example, Brazil, Russia, India and China have been a big beneficiary. It has created some new challenges as well. It has become easier for people to hurt companies and governments through hacking. Terrorist can connect with each other more easily. It is easy to spread unrest in a country through online networks. This unrest can be viewed as positive or negative impact depending upon your political beliefs. [[User:Pgaur\|Pgaur]] 04:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


	The web has afforded an access and visibility of information that had been previously unachievable. Content—now digitized as bits in a decentralized system—becomes reproducible and is potentially seen by far greater audiences. This technological shift has allowed for far more expansive spheres of production, circulation, and interaction. A young kid can quickly shoot a video using a digital camcorder, share the clip with an audience with YouTube, and interact with fans he may never have even anticipated (and I am not one of them, Justin Bieber). The top-down, gatekeeper-ish broadcast models of old media are at least threatened by this disruption. What web users may understand as enabling productive possibilities and participatory culture, has also been derided as the reason for copyright infringement, cheapened and superfluous content, as well as several dying industries.		The web has afforded an access and visibility of information that had been previously unachievable. Content—now digitized as bits in a decentralized system—becomes reproducible and is potentially seen by far greater audiences. This technological shift has allowed for far more expansive spheres of production, circulation, and interaction. A young kid can quickly shoot a video using a digital camcorder, share the clip with an audience with YouTube, and interact with fans he may never have even anticipated (and I am not one of them, Justin Bieber). The top-down, gatekeeper-ish broadcast models of old media are at least threatened by this disruption. What web users may understand as enabling productive possibilities and participatory culture, has also been derided as the reason for copyright infringement, cheapened and superfluous content, as well as several dying industries.

	But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)		But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels\|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:15, 5 April 2012
Line 35:		Line 35:

	It is a common sense to claim that internet has allowed an easy access to knowledge to potentially everyone. However, I feel that Internet has not still created the big bang expected. I think that digital technologies did not bring yet the expected revolution in terms of solidarity among people, social equity, spread of democracy, etc. For instance, there is no excellent education system on line for free; there is no solidarity network in place, etc. Social media have participated to the Revolution in Tunisia among other but with no certainty about the emergence of democracy. Maybe, the biggest change could be noticed in the financial world where worldwide trading is now possible. But, as for the life improvement of the human beings nothing remarkable has emerged. People who may need the most digital technologies are still apart from them even in the western developed part of the world.--[[User:Sab\|Sab]] 11:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)		It is a common sense to claim that internet has allowed an easy access to knowledge to potentially everyone. However, I feel that Internet has not still created the big bang expected. I think that digital technologies did not bring yet the expected revolution in terms of solidarity among people, social equity, spread of democracy, etc. For instance, there is no excellent education system on line for free; there is no solidarity network in place, etc. Social media have participated to the Revolution in Tunisia among other but with no certainty about the emergence of democracy. Maybe, the biggest change could be noticed in the financial world where worldwide trading is now possible. But, as for the life improvement of the human beings nothing remarkable has emerged. People who may need the most digital technologies are still apart from them even in the western developed part of the world.--[[User:Sab\|Sab]] 11:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

			@Sab: THX SAB I agree that the internet has a bit more to go. It's only been around for a short while now. Just what is the revolution is perhaps the question? [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


	What comes to mind immediately is the use of Twitter and Facebook with regards to the Arab Springs and Occupy movements. Economically, the 2010 "flash crash" and dynamics behind with regards to global economies are of significance. Also, as cloud computing is becoming more abundant, I wonder what role it will play with regards to this spectrum. [[User:Mvalerio\|Mvalerio]] 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)		What comes to mind immediately is the use of Twitter and Facebook with regards to the Arab Springs and Occupy movements. Economically, the 2010 "flash crash" and dynamics behind with regards to global economies are of significance. Also, as cloud computing is becoming more abundant, I wonder what role it will play with regards to this spectrum. [[User:Mvalerio\|Mvalerio]] 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

			@Mvalerio: Interesting comment on the occupy movement. I don't think the protests would have been as large without the internet. I noticed the local meida downplayed the protests. So, I take it as a social experiment, probably spawned by policy makers to test for echo. Progress seems to be working. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


	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)		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)

			@Fabiancelisj: I notice that even with the rise of the internet, websites do act like local media. For example, if I am using Netflix, shopping at Wal-Mart, eating at Subway, using Facebook and Windows, then it really doesn't matter where I am in the world. My data is still treated like I was in Boston, MA. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


	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)		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)

			@BlakeGeno: Interesting point about globalization. I also think that the internet is working to "format" the globe. But in a positive way. So, even in poverty stricken neighbourhoods children are using websites such as Facebook to bridge the gaps between cultures. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 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)		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)

			@Taber: Yes. Blogs are great in allowing people to express themselves. Also, websites allow people to be who they want to be. And being able to connect with like-mined people is a great thing as well. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 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)		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)

			@AlexLE: As freedom of information becomes avilable to citizens, I think that this becomes an added benefit for society. When it comes to corporations sharing information, then we don't always know what is out there. If only there were a stronger universal standard. For example, wehn I go to a box store they want a lot of information. What I buy, or rent is all there. But, getting a hold of this information can be a challenge. Updating it, or requesting information to be removed can also be a challenging thing. Governments seem to allow citizens great control of their personal information. However, corporations are another thing. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 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)		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)

			@HopeS: Yes, users are allowed to post whatever they want to. However, it is becoming the norm to post more and more. And, if you don't then you are coerced. So, this is a juxtaposition of freedom. If I am forced to give up information in order to be cool, and otherwise nobody wants to talk to me, then that's not a good thing for freedom. [[User:Just Johnny\|Just Johnny]] 03:15, 5 April 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)		"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		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