Paradigms for Studying the Internet: Difference between revisions

From Technologies of Politics and Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 9993 by Johnathan Merkwan (talk))
 
(41 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ClassCalendar}}
{{ClassCalendar}}


'''January 31'''
'''February 5'''


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.
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.  
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. The second hour of the class will focus on the [[Final Project|final project]] for the class, where we will discuss the research prompt, talk about some successful projects from prior years, and plot out the deadlines for the rest of the semester.
 
'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/IS2012_Jan31.pdf Download this week's slides] (PDF)'''


[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/IS2013_Class_2_Slides.pdf '''Download slides from this week's class.''']


<onlyinclude>
<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
== 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)
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7 - focus on "A Dot's Life")]


* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet, Chapter 4,The Generative Pattern]
* [http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/book-review-2008-06-2-admin/ Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from ''Ars Technica'')]


* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 7, What Things Regulate]
* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'', (Chapters 1 and 4 only)]


* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (pp. 379-396 only; stop at "The Physical Layer")]
* [http://www.danah.org/papers/2011/WhiteFlight.pdf danah boyd, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook] (read 1-11, skim 12-18, read 19-end)


== Optional Readings ==
== Optional Readings ==


* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]
* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310020 Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law (Focus on sections I and II)]


</onlyinclude>
</onlyinclude>
== Assignment 1 ==
Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 12th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].


== Videos Watched in Class ==
== Videos Watched in Class ==


== Links ==
== Links ==
 
For those of you with a stomach for south park, here is funny episode about when kyle accepts an iTunes agreement without first reading it...
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]
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 19:03, 5 February 2013 (EST)


== Class Discussion ==
== Class Discussion ==
I was reading The Whale and The Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology and found the theme of the book very relevant to the topic of this class. In The Whale, the author tries to build a philosophical framework to explore the relationship between technical change and political powers.
<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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>
 
Zitterain's article on generativity is a celebration of the limitless creative possibilities associated with the Internet and PC technologies. I agree with his assessment and appreciate his analysis. But I think the article manifests some form of naive technological determinism. It focuses narrowly on the Net technology and its social impacts, but fails to look behind technical devices to see the social circumstances of their development, deployment and use.
 
So I think what Lessig and Benkler's theories are extremely useful in understanding the interactive forces influencing the society with the Net. I like how Lessig points out four forces that help regulate the cyberspace (law, market, norm and architecture).
 
[[User:YHHsiao|YHHsiao]]Germaine (You Hwa) Hsiao
 
Lessig’s view on the “Principle of Bovinity” with regards to steering the mass toward a way of being or thinking is an appropriate thought.  However, in this unique situation, as opposed to the examples given of the past (i.e. seatbelts, discrimination, drugs, etc), internet regulation has an inherent property of being connected.  What I mean to say is that you may steer groups toward a thought or way of being through whatever means (architecture, laws, norms, market) for after a while, they will be disconnected from the original pioneering idea.  With regards to the internet though, there just seems to be too many means of communication that the original ideas will continue to be re-introduced, and hence the mass will never forget. [[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 
 
I find it very interesting to observe Lessig's constraints in action. I also find some of the examples troubling, and the likelihood of feedback loops disturbing. Take for example, privacy policies and user license agreements. As people get used to the idea of having information online, such as facebook or the now largely irrelevant myspace, internet privacy becomes less of a priority. The social norm becomes a lower expectation of privacy. Since few people thoroughly read privacy policies anyway, a company can start putting things in them that are not in the user's best interest. This becomes the market norm, because it gives a company a slight competitive edge. Because it helps them to become better integrated, companies now start encoding this lower level of privacy into their applications. Now, users may figure out what is happening, but because it is less outside of their societal norms, consumers shrug, say everyone else is doing it (market norm), and maybe things wouldn't work the same without doing things this way (architecture), and change their societal norms. Meanwhile, laws are kept nonrestrictive, because the companies make money from this level of expectations (market constraints acting on legal constraints), there is little pressure from consumers (societal constraints), and it would be difficult to figure out how to do it anyway because of how things are programed (architecture).
 
I'm not saying that this pattern has to happen, but it certainly can. As a change gains momentum, it can become very difficult to stop. I wonder if there is any particular constraint that is more or less likely to change the others.


*Edit: Speak of the devil. Last year,[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php  Mark Zuckerberg declaring that societal norms had changed with regards to privacy], right after facebook changed its architecture to force that trend.
Prepared by TAG


[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The readings made the argument that the internet has come full circle. Initially the technology industry was controlled by a select few such as IBM, then Microsoft, prior to the opening of the innovative frontier that emerged to a collective chaos, which theories in common allowed for. In recent years the political interest to regulate and control this platform of expression, is causing a paradigm shift back to an interest to have a select few, control the majority of the flow. This way it makes it easier to control and regulate.


The effectiveness and ability to build off of existing technology is paramount in the universal ability to advance it. This done by being able to leverage existing technology, mastering it, improving it, building on it, and sharing this with others. This would allow for the Allowance Theory to exist because opportunities would be afforded to the population instead of limiting. The ability to adapt is critical to succeed in this 21st century technological space. The large corporations are not as nimble or able to adapt as the smaller organizations which can be effective with speed. With innovation and the ability to adapt, these organizations can free themselves in a way by always evolving faster than regulations can counter respond with regulations. Innovations such as the Facebook revolution empowers the individual to have the freedom to participate, which has correlated to an acceptance of sharing information. This continued sharing of information will allow for the consistant long term evolution of technology. The key is it can never rest, can never stay stagnant, because the political and social ramifications will be drastic, when the freedom is restricted by those who have power politically or socially. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 10:54, 31 January 2013 (EST)


**********


The very wording of this section was a paradigm. The most interesting article was that of the interview about conflicts in the computer and internet community. The other articles required for class helped seed that information into more prosperity. With voice recognition, the interpretation of citation, and the understanding that there is more to a word that its intendor: the processor. What order deserved my attention as a document can be printed, scanned, faxed, printed then faxed et cetera. Johnathan Merkwan[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:57, 4 February 2013 (EST)
**********


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:
I found Lessig's piece quite interesting regarding regulatory constraints and the role that norms play in achieving regulation. Specifically, I found that his point stating that sometimes norms preclude technological changes and vice versa. Currently, the music industry is failing at copyright regulation as torrents and peer to peer networks share various media types over the web. I believe that as there is greater institutionalization from companies like Amazon, Apple (iTunes), and other online media outlets, the wide low cost provision of easily accessible media will cause a shift in norms leading to decreased illegal media downloads. Zittrain makes some very thought provoking points regarding "generativity". Calling for less constraining base models and frameworks for innovation, Zittrain discusses the idea of linking online identities to those in reality as a way to enforce copyright law. However, I don't think that users are ready for those ramifications. Take for example the immediate outrage and institution of legislation against employers and universities requesting Facebook passwords. While I personally don't agree with such requests either, it is clear that people are not ready to embrace that next shift even though it may lead to greater capabilities of the internet. Cybersecurity will be extremely contentious in the coming years as the internet and supporting frameworks continue to evolve, encompassing the capacity for innovation. The cloud is one centralized platform housing all sensitive information of its users which presents a great danger because the generativity of the web means that nothing is safe forever. Just look at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks; in a way Assange was acting as the protector of liberty in creating a forum for information. As the internet evolves, market concerns will increasingly become the driving factor of institutional innovation. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 18:07, 4 February 2013 (EST)


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.
**
:I disagree that increased institutionalization online by companies like itunes and Amazon could shift norms towards discouraging illegal downloads. First, I doubt prices can go any lower than they are at now ($1.99 for popular songs; 99c and rarely 65c for less popular or older songs) for both the distributor (iTunes, Amazon, etc), the music companies, and the artists to make money. Second, being able to freely download makes economical sense for the downloaders - that's why they're doing so in the first place. As long as there are ways to freely download, there will be people who will do so.  


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.
:That's not to say I support shutting down p2p technology and torrent sites - I seriously think they have played a big role in the spread of knowledge for people who otherwise would not have access. As mentioned/suggested briefly in class, the solution may lie in changing thinking and economic model of the entertainment industry.


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)
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 09:06, 11 February 2013 (EST)


*******


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.
Two separate but related thoughts.  


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.
1.) danah boyd’s article got me thinking about the differences in architecture between MySpace and Facebook and the relationship between that architecture and Zittrain’s concept of generativity. On MySpace, teens could “pimp out” their profiles with glitter and vibrant colors. In contrast, according to one user boyd interviewed, “Facebook was nice because it stymied such annoyances, limiting individuality.” Indeed, on Facebook, users could change their status updates and add photos to their profile, but the basic layout remained consistent from one user to the next. On Facebook, people can't change the template or design or their profile.


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.
Facebook is a less generative platform than MySpace – at least in the cultural sense. Facebook’s architecture closes down “the capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions,” while MySpace encouraged a wide range of customization and personal expression. However, because MySpace was more generative, again in the cultural sense, people could be much more derogatory in their profiles. Race and class became far more apparent. As a result, the site earned a negative stigma and eventually drove “white flight.”


@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.  
The story boyd tells indicates that, like the Internet, once a social platform is lenient enough, or generative enough, to enable all sorts of freedom of expression, some people will use it for inappropriate, destabilizing, and unanticipated uses. One could argue the same recurring pattern that unfolds with generative systems occurred with social networks. From a wide range of amateur contributions (MySpace) to lockdown and centralized control over personalization (Facebook). For many people, Facebook felt safer and had better privacy controls, but at what cost? Do we lose anything in terms of our ability to express ourselves and our identity? On Facebook, our personal data is codified into bits of data that can be easily packaged for advertisers. The TV Shows, the movies we like – that’s all just data points. On MySpace on the other hand, you could express yourself with unique flare and style. Not so easily package-able. Perhaps closer to the function of “fashion” in the real world.  
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


@Aditkowsky - I often wonder the same thing: why do companies/industries seemingly refuse to build on or latch on to the innovations already out there? Why won't the movie industry first make new movies available for download on demand (simultaneous to the opening night of a new movie) on a platform similar to iTunes in order to "combat" movie pirating? For many people, it's a matter of convenience and not only a matter of free movies. If piracy is as poisonous and profit-eating as Hollywood claims, why is there a continual increase in [bad] movies being made and record profits? The industry must appreciate innovation to some degree, as they now offer digital downloads, movies on demand, etc., but it has historically resisted new technologies and innovations, including the VCR. [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 
So it’s a trade-off. Facebook doesn’t allow you to alter the layout of the site but you get the comfort of not seeing some unsightly profile and feeling uncomfortable. So I’m curious – generative systems might make artistic and personal expression easier, but too much generativity can, well, freak people out. Take Second Life. Once a blossoming virtual world where you could build or create anything, it soon gained the reputation of being a pornographic hub, and users fled. Now it’s all but shut down.  


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”.  
2.) The iPhone is a complicated generative platform. According to Zittrain, the iPhone is technically less generative than the Apple II. That may be true. But is it culturally more generative? That is, anyone can use an iPhone to take a picture or tweet a news story or do any number of unanticipated things. If the iPhone was more technically generative, and apps were unfiltered by Apple, security might be compromised or it might become riddled with inappropriate content. People carry their life on their phones – it is a very intimate, personal device – worthy of intense security. So I wonder if the iPhone needs to be sterile in order for people to feel comfortable using it so freely and allow them to focus on cultural participation and cultural innovation. There is a fascinating relationship between people’s ability to alter technical specifications and people’s ability to alter the cultural landscape. I’m just not sure what that connection is yet.


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.
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 21:13, 4 February 2013 (EST)


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.  
The diverse frameworks presented in the readings this week shed light on technological: networks, constraints, and structural considerations. In the article ''What Things to Regulate'', the architecture examples illustrate metaphorical associations that I had not yet considered. Many of us view architecture from a tangible perspective, directly correlated to concrete structures, such as houses, buildings, and landscapes.  Understanding systems architecture in laymen terms, however, has always been challenging (for me) due to the complexity related to networking, routing, and stakeholder hand-offs.  Although I have worked with many IT Architects on unique consulting projects over the past few years, I have never truly understood the notion behind systems design.


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)
One of the key take-aways from the examples set forth in this article is the following: design alterations transform behaviors…whether significant or not. In other words, even if a given process inevitably stays the same, design modifications impact perceptions, which ultimately shift reactions. Parking airplanes at gates farther away from the baggage claim area—causing passengers to walk more—creates less stress when waiting for luggage (even if the rate at which luggage arrives stays the same); putting a mirror in front of an elevator reduces complaints about the elevator’s speed (even when the speed stays the same); adding a basic ramp in front of a building provides access for everyone (even if all other structural aspects remain identical).  Each of these illustrations is metaphorically correlated to the Internet and systems architecture.  Laws/Policies change regulations; regulations can impact architectural designs across numerous frontiers in cyber space; and design modifications can substantially influence people’s behaviors.


Benkler’s essay on laws that regulate the internet is interesting in the sense that our internet behavior with the internet can be seen as a reaction to regulations. We logically believe our online behavior is based on our own desires and consumer needs when in fact our behavior can be a function of the copyright infringement laws imposed upon us. Benkler indicates that “laws do affect human behavior by changing the payoffs to regulated actions directly” and that “they also shape social norms” (386). The jaywalking example is effective in demonstrating how a variety of other behaviors can be affected by a law.
The second insight that I would like to address in this week’s discussion is directly correlated to the MySpace-Facebook article, specifically focusing on the suburban illustration.  “Governmental agencies reduced investments in urban communities, depopulation lowered property values and shrunk the tax bases, and unemployment rose as jobs moved to the suburbs….Just as those who moved to the suburbs looked down upon those who remained in the cities, so too did Facebook users demean those on Myspace” (pgs. 31 and 34, respectively).  The analogies in this article are mind opening. One may think that cyber space unites people of all backgrounds, because boarders and boundaries are less clear (at times). However, the notion behind segregation in the cyber world is an interesting one to consider…it mirrors the real world in diverse ways.  What other online examples mirror the real world?  Where do virtual games fit (such as Second Life) when considering new realities?  Do most social network users escape realty through the use of online communication or do social networks bring individuals closer together?  What do others in class think about the metaphors presented in this article, specifically regarding segregation in cyber space? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 05:16, 5 February 2013 (EST)


When I look back at major changes in my online behavior as a result of copyright laws, iTunes comes to mind. Naturally I have been concerned about any ramifications related to illegally downloading software. The copyright laws required the end users to purchase entire albums which can restrict access to newer, lesser-known music; Apple responded to these laws by providing a legal service that allowed for individual songs to be previewed and downloaded, and the nature of our internet behavior, particularly concerning internet music exploration changed, all because of internet laws. How we view music and the internet now is fundamentally different than prior to iTunes. [[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
*****


Thanks for posing that question Zak.  I found the MySpace-Facebook article to be fascinating and it had me thinking about my own social networks I've created.  My Facebook network is made up primarily of people that I know or have known in real life.  So that network does tend to mirror my physical life which probably is a bit segregated.  However, I think, and hope, that my network I've created on Twitter is a bit more diverse as I follow all sorts of people on that site- people I know but mostly people I've never met.  I use Twitter for news, to keep up on my profession, comedy, and lots of local food/beer spots.  So the people I follow really vary there much more so than in Facebook.  I know that Facebook and Twitter are very different platforms but I would be curious to see if you were to look at who people follow on Twitter vs who they are friends with on Facebook if it would show a more diverse view for either.  Because I now tend to get a great deal of my news from Twitter, I'm constantly trying to expand that universe so that I don't just get one or two viewpoints and am not living in a bubble.  But that's a conscious effort and I would wonder what would happen if I didn't do that as much. 


All of the readings for this week were very interesting and were able to get me thinking about how some of the concepts cited in the works can be tied to my everyday usage of certain programs. At one point in the Benkler article it almost seems to me that the author is trying to give a symbolical picture of two entities such as the big industries or the "giants", and their opposition formed by the majority of the population, in a perennial contrast. On one hand, the big industries are trying to protect their economic interests, while on the other hand, the majority of the population is trying to resist against this forced regulation. It also seems to me that when something new is discovered for the first time, as soon as people learn about such unregulated and innovative feature, they try to exploit it to their own benefit. But after some time, the founders or industries realize that they have to protect their "money making machines" from public and unregulated usage; therefore laws in regards are passed, patents are deposited, trademarks are extended etc. in order to contrast this phenomenon. I personally recall what was done in order to fight or at least limit piracy in the music industry a few years ago. Once, anyone was able to illegally download music from programs such as "emule" or "bearshare", where chances of actually getting caught were very little but at the same time these actions violated certain federal laws enforced by the F.B.I. So what has been done after that, was that instead of downloading illegal music, which would "violate the law" and also result risky for what concerns contracting computer viruses, was transformed in a just process where songs could be bought for one dollar or so on specific programs, the most famous being "iTunes". This allows artists to make some profit from their work but at the same time it allowed people to buy the songs at a cheap price and most importantly, in a legal manner. For what concerns "sharing", I once heard by a friend that "if you upload material on a specific program, you are allowed to download other stuff without facing legal charges", but then the question is: how does someone regulate that "material sharing"? it was very easy for anyone to just download without uploading anything in return. But returning to the authors, the most interesting part for me was Lessig's "principle of bovinity", described by Benkler and how he explains the principle of controlling a large number of people or animals in a metaphorical sense with little resources and very few rules, although constantly enforced. In conclusion I personally think that the whole process of protecting and regulating the usage of a given site or program is just part of a never ending cycle where someone creates a program for instance, which will be then used and abused, with subsequent establishment of laws and protection which will just be overcome and the whole cycle will start again. Perhaps this is a pessimistic view of how things are actually functioning but my feel is that this process is just like a virus vs. antivirus eternal battle. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 18:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The other online world that this article had me thinking about a lot is online dating. Social in a much different world but I often think about all the data that is collected by these sites as people share a lot (full disclosure: so do I!). I would be curious if there was a similar segregation that happened at all on these sites like OkCupid, Match, eHarmony, etc in addition to the sites that actually do cater to a single race, religion, occupation, etc. I would guess that online dating networks mirror reality very much so. [[User:Nfonsh|Nfonsh]] 12:37, 5 February 2013 (EST)


I found the readings very thought provoking. In “What Things  Regulate”, I found it really interesting how the author evaluates threat to liberty.  It is interesting how norms, law, market and architecture provide a powerful combination for regulation. The contrast between norms and law was quite insightful and I was left wondering how in our life, norms rule our behavior. I agree with author’s opinion that state should not be using nontransparent means when transparent means are available. I spent some time arguing why the government would feel compelled to use non-transparent means. How would they defend using such means.
*****
In Benkler’s article, discussion on enclosure and openness seems very relevant and could be applied to real life example. Facebook succeeded over MySpace due to its open platform. iPhone gained much of its popularity due to the applications developed on open platform. It is worth evaluating how Eclosure restricts creativity and innovation? Is it worth for the little girl to spend time on replacing her picture frame by frame in the clip of movie Schindler’s List? It is interesting to see how the regulations would evolve with today’s technological advancements and the very need to share. Recent strikes by Wikipedia and Google point out to that very conflict between the government and technology. [[User:Pgaur|Pgaur]] 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading about social network articles and how these networks influence individuals in life. The concept of openness, alone, Facebook as an example brings ample views and ideas how people share their lives throughout the simple “public” concept as Internet. Social media is continually evolving and keeping individuals up to date well informed on that social media could offer thru secure and controlled experience. The main question arises is where the Internet is going and where it has been throughout the lenses of technological evolution and innovative experiments. Social networks continue to surround each of us, and continue to navigate the regulatory enterprise and practices around the world. Due to issues that Internet is altering the complex amounts of information, the social networks still come in a long perspective of academia and popular culture arenas. Is it still considers a “real world”? In my view that it’s the main criticism of social network via Internet. Is there a control and secure openness thru social media (Facebook, twitter)? How people interpret the information? I this there are ample questions that still retain the privacy control throughout the demographics of social media.  
[[User:User777|user777]] 13:08, 5 February 2013 (EST)


The article “What Things Regulate” brings up an interesting point. I think that there would be more government involvement and regulation in the future of the internet in terms of privacy. For example, currently there is no law against Facebook’s privacy settings, and one is not banned from dispersing such private and personal information. It is up to the users to control their own privacy. Moreover, there is no guarantee that your personal information would not be breached. I think that the government will attempt to have more control and regulation over the internet. However, simultaneously there would be an outburst by the consumers who demand the right to open information. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 20:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


@AlexLE thanks for starting off the discussion- particularly the parameters/constraints/theories surrounding the internet. Zittrain discusses concept of hierarchy and polyarchy provoked many discussions about the iPhone/Android particularly open/close sourced applications. iPhone’s sandbox approach allows programmers to create open source applications subject to Apple's approval.  Some might argue that these enforced limitations create a barrier between the programmer and the consumer. Google, unlike Apple, does not require approval to release applications on their Android phones- relying on the consumer to weed out harmful applications. Personally, I prefer Apple’s approach- it creates a more user-friendly environment. Linux, similarly to Android is completely open sourced which is great for programmers but too time consuming and complicated for the average consumer. [[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 20:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in how we have standardized our thoughts that "real" life and "social media life" are separate and unequal.  I bring up again the video from last week again as John Perry Barlow spoke of the independence of speech on the Internet as if it were mankind's great utopia.... not fettered by laws but free and ubiquitous. FaceBook, My Space, Twitter, et al are brands built by business owners and, as with most brands,  have a developed  marketing strategy to overlay a "vogue" cache that makes one want to buy into that culture.  What is different from walking down the street with a Nike "just do It" t-shirt on and having strangers overlay their own impressions of that brand to posting sayings, articles debates, conversations etc within social media and once again having, let's say for the most part, strangers overlay their own impressions of those thoughts?  If they are your "real" friends on Facebook they read your views and posts through the filter of their knowledge of your personality... Same as the Nike t-shirt.   
In the article White Flight, the comment that My Space was "ghetto" became an echo chamber. 
It was "better" to have FaceBook.... so I feel this speaks to the argument made by Lessig in 'A Dot's Life"....  "We can call each constraint a “regulator,” and we can think of each as a distinct modality of regulation. Each modality has a complex nature, and the interaction among these four is also hard to describe."  All the rules of  a "regulator" apply when looking at social media sites. 
So again I wonder ~ how did one become real and one become not?  In the way we leave lasting digital footprints every time we log onto sites, isn't that even more "real" than footprints washed away from a beach where we physically walked?  Is it possible that the day we look at the some of the parts as our "whole" life, we will have stronger "real" life?[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 16:43, 5 February 2013 (EST)


I agree with Eric von Hippel’s idea that firms should welcome improvements to their projects by customers instead of relying solely on internal Research and Development departments. Zittrain states, “Activity led by amateurs can lead to results that would not have been produced in a firm-mediated market model.” I believe a good example of a company or “firm” incorporating customer feedback is Facebook. Facebook continually updates the format and access to information based on customer feedback. The following are examples of how Facebook incorporates Zittrain’s five principle factors of generativity.  1. Leverage: Facebook makes a difficult task of reaching out to friends and family extremely easy. 2. Adaptability: Since the development of Facebook, a newsfeed has been incorporated to make it easier for users to get updates when friends’ information has change.  Ease of 3. Mastery: Facebook users do not have to be technologically savvy to understand how to use the program. 4. Accessibility: A user only needs access to the Internet and the program is free to use. 5. Transferability: Users are given notices about updates to the program with tutorials. User HSolomon 21:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
*****
“Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born.”
― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov


I also have to agree that the articles this week were very thought provoking particularly how Benkler reviews the legal aspects of regulating the internet and how the “institutional ecology of the digitally networked environment is waged precisely over how many individual users will continue to participate in making the networked information environment.”  It is key for its survival and for those (or us average consumers) to continue to actively pursue the creation of various platforms, technologies, and the digital environment, and fight against wanton regulation and attempts to constrict and impose superfluous standards/laws such as SOPA and PIPA.  This is also in accordance with his statement of how “legal responses” and the “primary role of law has been reactive and reactionary,” thus it is to society’s advantage to continue to produce, create, and contribute.
"While I am fully supportive of the need to combat intellectual piracy, specifically dealing with foreign rogue digital theft sites, legislation must not impede freedom of expression on the internet and online innovation. We must work to find an approach that protects content and the freedom of distribution and technology that is smart and targeted without stifling the innovators and entrepreneurs that make San Francisco and the Bay Area so vibrant."
Nancy Peolosi February 2012 Letter to constituents regarding SOPA


I also really enjoyed reading Zittrain’s concept of Generativity and demonstrating how the system operates from a fundamental perspective. This is what is so fascinating about these digital technologies and how extensive and powerful they can affect the growth of a society i.e. remarkable mobile technology growth in emerging markets or the evolution of the internet resulting in significant increases  in digital/media/business companies in conflicted countries such as Afghanistan.
“No one who uses the Internet on a regular basis needs reminding about the perils of spam, phishing, data breaches, hackers, viruses, spyware, and denial of service attacks that make up part of the modern Internet traffic. Almost all such problems can be chalked up to generative systems; closed systems, like the Xbox 360, TiVo, and the PS3, may have their own issues but don't regularly experience the same problems.
It's no wonder that, in the face of such threats, many users would prefer something simpler and locked-down in exchange for security. But it's not just end users who run into problems with generative devices and networks; governments and content owners would both prefer devices and networks that could be monitored and controlled at least a little more tightly. Attempts to alter the fundamental PC architecture in such a way that it is "trusted" (by content owners and third-parties, at least) have met stiff resistance on the part of buyers, who now instinctively view to computers as fully generative devices that should remain under their personal control.”
Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from Ars Technica)


@HSolomon, I was thinking of the exact same example and thought of Facebook upon reading that. [[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 22:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that even before we decide on a structure to view the internet and digital technologies through, we need a clear understanding of how we, human beings, interact with our environments.
Here, in the United States, we seem perfectly happy to give away freedoms guaranteed by our constitution in the name of safety. And Dostoevsky’s quote demonstrates we are not alone in that.
We can look at legal frameworks, or technological frameworks, but ultimately we are human beings, and though the internet may be the most amazing tool we have yet to develop, I would assert we do not have a particularly good track record when it comes to preserving our freedoms, or valuing our public goods.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)


Benkler really uncovers a tug-of-war between those sectors of society which want freedom and those that don’t, and exposes how the traditional industrial-commercial sector of society prefer to keep control.  To me, this is not surprising, and having lived in many parts of the world, I have found that this attitude has no national boundaries.  Human nature is international, and those who control economy and power tend to want to control that and stay on top.  About the “Principle of Bovinity” of Lessig, I believe that is applied to many spheres of influence in society, not just the internet, and shows that there are those who truly seek to control, and quite consciously, quite astutely, study the most effective socio-psychological means to do it.  I agree that freedom can need guidelines at times, or the freedom of one can infringe upon the freedom of another, and who or what can be the judge of that?  It’s a hard question to answer and requires deep reflection.  I believe we need freedom, yet also responsibility.  Still, we come to the question on who can be the unbiased judge of that? (By the way, I'm pretty new at editing wikis, couldn't find how to upload this, was late in the process, and maybe edited everything else in sight during the process.  I'll get better!)[[User:Mike|Mike]] 22:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
******


@Szakuto  While I agree that Apple's sandbox approach is an excellent means of generation for 'average' consumers to participate in the proliferation of that platform, if Lessig's approach to freedom of expression, as he defines it using Mill's principles, is applied to the Apple sandbox, it is then nothing more than a limit on the freedom of expression for developers.  I do agree that they have simplified the process for easy development, but since every app must be approved by Apple, as well as every program delivered through Apple's iTunes, it limits the creativity of the developers, and is nothing more than a form of censorship, rather than enabling the generativity that Zittrain speaks of.[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 22:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


I’ve enjoyed this week’s readings, particularly “What Things Regulate” and I tend to agree that we need regulation and stiff penalties where the message can be very clear to those who break the law. I like Zittrain’ expressions of how interdependency of “architecture” & “norms” are dictating our lives and the importance of PC. I am looking forward to this class. Sophia 5:30 January 31, 2012 (UTC)
This is a tangent related to the tangent made in class on the readability of Terms of Services. I'm one of those who usually doesn't read Terms of Services, especially those not having to do with the bank. But the discussion raised my curiosity, so when I was considering setting up a tumblr account so I can participate with my friends, I stopped to read tumblr's Terms of Service, which is located here: http://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/terms_of_service


Perhaps I'm lucky since tumblr does not fit into the examples made in class. Tumblr's Terms of Service is very readable and accessible, and Tumblr actually states that they deliberately made it so. If the legal text itself is still a bit too lofty, especially for younger visitors,  then Tumblr's summaries after each section will do the job as well.


Weekly Response
Some parts are even humorous. Take for example the annotations for the section on Eligibilty: "You have to be at least 13 years old to use Tumblr. We're serious: it's a hard rule, based on U.S. federal and state legislation, even if you're 12.9 years old. If you're younger than 13, don't use Tumblr. Ask your parents for an Xbox or try books."
January 31: Paradigms for Studying the Internet


In terms of the architecture: The primary problem is that if we start to give things away for free, then we are starting to resemble communism somewhat.  So, companies have to find new ways to make people spend their money.  This becomes an issue in the digital landscape, particularly while trying to maintain or enforce capitalism within the framework of the internet.  By making the architecture of the internet consistent with market economy structures, then it becomes easier to reinforce and perpetuate market capitalism.  And there must be reasons to sustain the public faith, not just gimmicks and tricks in order to maintain a state of mass confusion.  Especially, when getting something for free is way better than having to pay for it!  Although, strictly enforcing this as the only option without any freedom of choice should not be looked at as a long term strategy, particularly as the common man starts to wake up to this actuality.  Legalities alone will not work to control, but corporations have to offer honest incentives to give real reasons for consumers to buy their products. 
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 03:37, 11 February 2013 (EST)


When it came to Google Books, there was a bit of controversy surrounding this notion of accessibility. Google had a great idea with digitizing all of the books in the world and putting them online, while allowing anyone to access the material like a library.  It was a brilliant idea, but was stopped and instead turned into an Amazon like store.  Not very good for progress towards all of humanity, but a sure step-back to Capital control.  Understanding, of course, that this is one of the main aims at Google.  Keeping in mind that the spreading of ideas and information is partly what the internet was designed for, this goes against what the internet is fundamentally meant to be about.
Danah Boyd’s article was really disappointing because he could have truly made it interesting and signficiant.  Not being a fan of either My Space or Facebook, at least until recently for the latter as I feel it is a good medium to communicate with "Friends" in remote and/or far away places.  The article contained several foundation facts and helped me understand some of the differences, but not much more and continued to make the point over and over again with case studies that demonstrated the same points over and over again.


The double standard, of course is that if we are going to continue within a capitalist system, then we must continue to remember the thought that this is my computer, this is my money, and this is my life.  And this stems from the natural world – for example: this is my body, and not yours.  Once we start to stray away from that, then we are not talking about progress or innovation anymore.  We are talking about something fundamentally different than what we supposedly are all working for.  We are talking about a form of fascism.  And this becomes somewhat deceptive on the part of the corporations, governments, and so forth – even if the next generation of consumers have no idea what the deal is to begin with.  This is, of course, unless we are talking about a framework that does not apply to the natural world.  The internet is a collective, a place where we fade into each other.
I feel Mr. (Ms?) Boyd should have added a lot more foundational information and perhaps not only argued the differences between the two social networks, but give his/her opinion and facts why.


If companies want to make a product then they should be able to do so in a free and open market economy.  And they should try and make it as best as is possible.  Companies should continue to invent and innovate in order to improve on their products.  People will always modify the products and customize them however they want. Tinkering with things goes back to “caveman” days, and is what continues to progress society -- even today. When a person purchases a car and decides to give it a new paint job, or to install a new stereo system, this is not the concern of the company that manufactured the automobile, nor should it be. Although, I do understand the concerns by manufacturers trying to maintain a public image. If you see a Rolls Royce painted with blue flames and monster truck wheels, the manufacturer might have some disapproval under some circumstances because the manufacturer wants to maintain control over the public perception of the brand.  When I purchase something, it is mine – I am the owner of it – and not the company that I bought it from. Therefore, I see no reason to think that a company should have control over something once it has been purchased.  However, when I purchase something I want to be awed. I need a reason to purchase it. So, this presentation showroom “complete package” that I am given by corporations becomes a good idea in this sense. And I understand how corporations try to maintain this best composure by making sure consumers do not break their warranty.  Heaven forbid if the dumb consumer should break their laptop by installing some new ram by themselves!  Of course, this leaves open room for new jobs and industries – for example: Best Buy's “Geek Squad.”  Although, I do think that once I purchase the item I should be able to do whatever I want with it. And if I no longer like it, I should be able to return it, or donate it, or even smash it if I so choose to do so. And I do not think that this should be illegal as a condition of my purchase. Yet, this forms a very police state kind of mentality, treating consumers as though they are criminals before any crime has been committed.  
******
This is in response to [[Muromi's]] comments on the Tumblr [https://www.tumblr.com/login] Terms of Service [http://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/terms_of_service], but I promise to bring it back to our readings. I've been a long-term fan of Tumblr, and I can say that the Tumblr TOS is a reflection of the Tumblr experience. The contributors tend to be serious: CJ Chivers of the New York Times[http://cjchivers.com/]; Anthony De Rosa of Reuters [http://soupsoup.tumblr.com/]; informative: America's Test Kitchen [http://americastestkitchen.tumblr.com/]; but also playful: Sesame Street[http://sesamestreet.tumblr.com]. PR and Marketing, though in evidence, are done with an effort to integrate into the user community: The Economist[http://theeconomist.tumblr.com/]; LLBean [http://llbeanpr.tumblr.com/]; The Atlantic[http://theatlantic.tumblr.com/]; The New Yorker[http://newyorker.tumblr.com/].  


The thing about participation is that it is already a controlled process, but a matter of choice to initiate. We have religion to control us, along with laws, government, and the educational system.
Other contributors who show up on one's dashboard, and with whom one can interact directly by reblogging (a way of responding, but also of reposting) can start to feel like friends in a distinctly different way then the term ''friend'' is used by Facebook. There is, of course, a running joke among long-time users that 40% of one's followers are high school students from Japan, and occasionally a spam problem pops up. But generally the experience is one of openness, friendliness and creativity. The TOS is just one aspect of this, but it demonstrates how some thoughtfulness on the part of founders can go a long way to contributing to a positive user experience.  


“Fortunately, there are many ways in which people have a chance to build and contribute. Many jobs demand intellectual engagement, which can be fun for its own sake. People take joy in rearing children: teaching, interacting, guiding. They can also immerse themselves in artistic invention or software coding” (Zittrain).
To bring this back on topic, unlike the Facebook, MySpace dichotomy posed by Danah Boyd, Tumblr truly can belong to anyone[http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/30/30-must-see-tumblr-blogs/slide/all/][https://www.tumblr.com/]. One does not need friends already on the site to begin participating, one just follows people one is interested in following. Despite my earlier comment about high school students in Japan, if someone reblogs someone and responds thoughtfully to a post, the response usually is an inclusion into the conversation and a follow.  


And so, there is this notion of an underlying architecture already in place that is reinforced through society. Our parents raise us, and we are in line with the rest of our surroundings. So, do I want to see the advertisements through Google, or do I want to chat with my friends on Facebook?  Depending on who your friends are, there is no difference between the two – because of the architecture already existent within society.  You think: How was that movie, or that book, or that song, or that sports game?  When in fact everything we are surrounded by reinforces the system.  So, in this sense, just because the internet is fairly new does not automatically mean that it is not safe. Even if that new song by the Black Eyed Peas is being pirated somewhere, it is still reinforcing Capitalism -- it is a byproduct of it, programmed only to reinforce control. So, maintaining a balance over the long term will be a challenge, because the internet is fundamentally about me and you.
Truly no one knows your age, race and class if you choose not to provide that information. One can participate wholly with links to photographs and music - and many do[http://fredwilson.vc/].Finally, unlike the faux creativity touted by MySpace and its fans, Tumblr users are the real deal, people of all ages who post original writing, drawing, photography and music for the world rather than limiting themselves to changing the template upon which their user page is viewed (although this too is possible on Tumblr[http://www.tumblr.com/themes/]).


What really becomes interesting about this then is that the internet has the potential to ''heal the world'' and ''make it a better place'' – not just for one, but for the entire human race.  In a perfect world, there would be no need for power and control structures. Instead, control would be distributed evenly so that individuals could choose how to live their lives, and in a sense design their own lifestyle with elements that they see appropriate.  And, the internet is an interesting step towards this liberating notion of limitlessness.
Lawrence Lessig's Tumblr is here: http://lessig.tumblr.com/


[[User:Just Johnny|Just Johnny]] 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Latest revision as of 15:22, 6 March 2013

Syllabus


February 5

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. The second hour of the class will focus on the final project for the class, where we will discuss the research prompt, talk about some successful projects from prior years, and plot out the deadlines for the rest of the semester.

Download slides from this week's class.


Readings

Optional Readings


Assignment 1

Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 12th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see this page for further information. You can submit the assignment here.

Videos Watched in Class

Links

For those of you with a stomach for south park, here is funny episode about when kyle accepts an iTunes agreement without first reading it... http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad Phildade 19:03, 5 February 2013 (EST)

Class Discussion

Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Asellars 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Prepared by TAG

The readings made the argument that the internet has come full circle. Initially the technology industry was controlled by a select few such as IBM, then Microsoft, prior to the opening of the innovative frontier that emerged to a collective chaos, which theories in common allowed for. In recent years the political interest to regulate and control this platform of expression, is causing a paradigm shift back to an interest to have a select few, control the majority of the flow. This way it makes it easier to control and regulate.

The effectiveness and ability to build off of existing technology is paramount in the universal ability to advance it. This done by being able to leverage existing technology, mastering it, improving it, building on it, and sharing this with others. This would allow for the Allowance Theory to exist because opportunities would be afforded to the population instead of limiting. The ability to adapt is critical to succeed in this 21st century technological space. The large corporations are not as nimble or able to adapt as the smaller organizations which can be effective with speed. With innovation and the ability to adapt, these organizations can free themselves in a way by always evolving faster than regulations can counter respond with regulations. Innovations such as the Facebook revolution empowers the individual to have the freedom to participate, which has correlated to an acceptance of sharing information. This continued sharing of information will allow for the consistant long term evolution of technology. The key is it can never rest, can never stay stagnant, because the political and social ramifications will be drastic, when the freedom is restricted by those who have power politically or socially. Interestingcomments 10:54, 31 January 2013 (EST)

The very wording of this section was a paradigm. The most interesting article was that of the interview about conflicts in the computer and internet community. The other articles required for class helped seed that information into more prosperity. With voice recognition, the interpretation of citation, and the understanding that there is more to a word that its intendor: the processor. What order deserved my attention as a document can be printed, scanned, faxed, printed then faxed et cetera. Johnathan MerkwanJohnathan Merkwan 13:57, 4 February 2013 (EST)

I found Lessig's piece quite interesting regarding regulatory constraints and the role that norms play in achieving regulation. Specifically, I found that his point stating that sometimes norms preclude technological changes and vice versa. Currently, the music industry is failing at copyright regulation as torrents and peer to peer networks share various media types over the web. I believe that as there is greater institutionalization from companies like Amazon, Apple (iTunes), and other online media outlets, the wide low cost provision of easily accessible media will cause a shift in norms leading to decreased illegal media downloads. Zittrain makes some very thought provoking points regarding "generativity". Calling for less constraining base models and frameworks for innovation, Zittrain discusses the idea of linking online identities to those in reality as a way to enforce copyright law. However, I don't think that users are ready for those ramifications. Take for example the immediate outrage and institution of legislation against employers and universities requesting Facebook passwords. While I personally don't agree with such requests either, it is clear that people are not ready to embrace that next shift even though it may lead to greater capabilities of the internet. Cybersecurity will be extremely contentious in the coming years as the internet and supporting frameworks continue to evolve, encompassing the capacity for innovation. The cloud is one centralized platform housing all sensitive information of its users which presents a great danger because the generativity of the web means that nothing is safe forever. Just look at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks; in a way Assange was acting as the protector of liberty in creating a forum for information. As the internet evolves, market concerns will increasingly become the driving factor of institutional innovation. AaronEttl 18:07, 4 February 2013 (EST)

I disagree that increased institutionalization online by companies like itunes and Amazon could shift norms towards discouraging illegal downloads. First, I doubt prices can go any lower than they are at now ($1.99 for popular songs; 99c and rarely 65c for less popular or older songs) for both the distributor (iTunes, Amazon, etc), the music companies, and the artists to make money. Second, being able to freely download makes economical sense for the downloaders - that's why they're doing so in the first place. As long as there are ways to freely download, there will be people who will do so.
That's not to say I support shutting down p2p technology and torrent sites - I seriously think they have played a big role in the spread of knowledge for people who otherwise would not have access. As mentioned/suggested briefly in class, the solution may lie in changing thinking and economic model of the entertainment industry.

--Muromi 09:06, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Two separate but related thoughts.

1.) danah boyd’s article got me thinking about the differences in architecture between MySpace and Facebook and the relationship between that architecture and Zittrain’s concept of generativity. On MySpace, teens could “pimp out” their profiles with glitter and vibrant colors. In contrast, according to one user boyd interviewed, “Facebook was nice because it stymied such annoyances, limiting individuality.” Indeed, on Facebook, users could change their status updates and add photos to their profile, but the basic layout remained consistent from one user to the next. On Facebook, people can't change the template or design or their profile.

Facebook is a less generative platform than MySpace – at least in the cultural sense. Facebook’s architecture closes down “the capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions,” while MySpace encouraged a wide range of customization and personal expression. However, because MySpace was more generative, again in the cultural sense, people could be much more derogatory in their profiles. Race and class became far more apparent. As a result, the site earned a negative stigma and eventually drove “white flight.”

The story boyd tells indicates that, like the Internet, once a social platform is lenient enough, or generative enough, to enable all sorts of freedom of expression, some people will use it for inappropriate, destabilizing, and unanticipated uses. One could argue the same recurring pattern that unfolds with generative systems occurred with social networks. From a wide range of amateur contributions (MySpace) to lockdown and centralized control over personalization (Facebook). For many people, Facebook felt safer and had better privacy controls, but at what cost? Do we lose anything in terms of our ability to express ourselves and our identity? On Facebook, our personal data is codified into bits of data that can be easily packaged for advertisers. The TV Shows, the movies we like – that’s all just data points. On MySpace on the other hand, you could express yourself with unique flare and style. Not so easily package-able. Perhaps closer to the function of “fashion” in the real world.

So it’s a trade-off. Facebook doesn’t allow you to alter the layout of the site but you get the comfort of not seeing some unsightly profile and feeling uncomfortable. So I’m curious – generative systems might make artistic and personal expression easier, but too much generativity can, well, freak people out. Take Second Life. Once a blossoming virtual world where you could build or create anything, it soon gained the reputation of being a pornographic hub, and users fled. Now it’s all but shut down.

2.) The iPhone is a complicated generative platform. According to Zittrain, the iPhone is technically less generative than the Apple II. That may be true. But is it culturally more generative? That is, anyone can use an iPhone to take a picture or tweet a news story or do any number of unanticipated things. If the iPhone was more technically generative, and apps were unfiltered by Apple, security might be compromised or it might become riddled with inappropriate content. People carry their life on their phones – it is a very intimate, personal device – worthy of intense security. So I wonder if the iPhone needs to be sterile in order for people to feel comfortable using it so freely and allow them to focus on cultural participation and cultural innovation. There is a fascinating relationship between people’s ability to alter technical specifications and people’s ability to alter the cultural landscape. I’m just not sure what that connection is yet.

Asmith 21:13, 4 February 2013 (EST)

The diverse frameworks presented in the readings this week shed light on technological: networks, constraints, and structural considerations. In the article What Things to Regulate, the architecture examples illustrate metaphorical associations that I had not yet considered. Many of us view architecture from a tangible perspective, directly correlated to concrete structures, such as houses, buildings, and landscapes. Understanding systems architecture in laymen terms, however, has always been challenging (for me) due to the complexity related to networking, routing, and stakeholder hand-offs. Although I have worked with many IT Architects on unique consulting projects over the past few years, I have never truly understood the notion behind systems design.

One of the key take-aways from the examples set forth in this article is the following: design alterations transform behaviors…whether significant or not. In other words, even if a given process inevitably stays the same, design modifications impact perceptions, which ultimately shift reactions. Parking airplanes at gates farther away from the baggage claim area—causing passengers to walk more—creates less stress when waiting for luggage (even if the rate at which luggage arrives stays the same); putting a mirror in front of an elevator reduces complaints about the elevator’s speed (even when the speed stays the same); adding a basic ramp in front of a building provides access for everyone (even if all other structural aspects remain identical). Each of these illustrations is metaphorically correlated to the Internet and systems architecture. Laws/Policies change regulations; regulations can impact architectural designs across numerous frontiers in cyber space; and design modifications can substantially influence people’s behaviors.

The second insight that I would like to address in this week’s discussion is directly correlated to the MySpace-Facebook article, specifically focusing on the suburban illustration. “Governmental agencies reduced investments in urban communities, depopulation lowered property values and shrunk the tax bases, and unemployment rose as jobs moved to the suburbs….Just as those who moved to the suburbs looked down upon those who remained in the cities, so too did Facebook users demean those on Myspace” (pgs. 31 and 34, respectively). The analogies in this article are mind opening. One may think that cyber space unites people of all backgrounds, because boarders and boundaries are less clear (at times). However, the notion behind segregation in the cyber world is an interesting one to consider…it mirrors the real world in diverse ways. What other online examples mirror the real world? Where do virtual games fit (such as Second Life) when considering new realities? Do most social network users escape realty through the use of online communication or do social networks bring individuals closer together? What do others in class think about the metaphors presented in this article, specifically regarding segregation in cyber space? Zak Paster 05:16, 5 February 2013 (EST)

Thanks for posing that question Zak. I found the MySpace-Facebook article to be fascinating and it had me thinking about my own social networks I've created. My Facebook network is made up primarily of people that I know or have known in real life. So that network does tend to mirror my physical life which probably is a bit segregated. However, I think, and hope, that my network I've created on Twitter is a bit more diverse as I follow all sorts of people on that site- people I know but mostly people I've never met. I use Twitter for news, to keep up on my profession, comedy, and lots of local food/beer spots. So the people I follow really vary there much more so than in Facebook. I know that Facebook and Twitter are very different platforms but I would be curious to see if you were to look at who people follow on Twitter vs who they are friends with on Facebook if it would show a more diverse view for either. Because I now tend to get a great deal of my news from Twitter, I'm constantly trying to expand that universe so that I don't just get one or two viewpoints and am not living in a bubble. But that's a conscious effort and I would wonder what would happen if I didn't do that as much.

The other online world that this article had me thinking about a lot is online dating. Social in a much different world but I often think about all the data that is collected by these sites as people share a lot (full disclosure: so do I!). I would be curious if there was a similar segregation that happened at all on these sites like OkCupid, Match, eHarmony, etc in addition to the sites that actually do cater to a single race, religion, occupation, etc. I would guess that online dating networks mirror reality very much so. Nfonsh 12:37, 5 February 2013 (EST)

I enjoyed reading about social network articles and how these networks influence individuals in life. The concept of openness, alone, Facebook as an example brings ample views and ideas how people share their lives throughout the simple “public” concept as Internet. Social media is continually evolving and keeping individuals up to date well informed on that social media could offer thru secure and controlled experience. The main question arises is where the Internet is going and where it has been throughout the lenses of technological evolution and innovative experiments. Social networks continue to surround each of us, and continue to navigate the regulatory enterprise and practices around the world. Due to issues that Internet is altering the complex amounts of information, the social networks still come in a long perspective of academia and popular culture arenas. Is it still considers a “real world”? In my view that it’s the main criticism of social network via Internet. Is there a control and secure openness thru social media (Facebook, twitter)? How people interpret the information? I this there are ample questions that still retain the privacy control throughout the demographics of social media. user777 13:08, 5 February 2013 (EST)


I am interested in how we have standardized our thoughts that "real" life and "social media life" are separate and unequal. I bring up again the video from last week again as John Perry Barlow spoke of the independence of speech on the Internet as if it were mankind's great utopia.... not fettered by laws but free and ubiquitous. FaceBook, My Space, Twitter, et al are brands built by business owners and, as with most brands, have a developed marketing strategy to overlay a "vogue" cache that makes one want to buy into that culture. What is different from walking down the street with a Nike "just do It" t-shirt on and having strangers overlay their own impressions of that brand to posting sayings, articles debates, conversations etc within social media and once again having, let's say for the most part, strangers overlay their own impressions of those thoughts? If they are your "real" friends on Facebook they read your views and posts through the filter of their knowledge of your personality... Same as the Nike t-shirt. In the article White Flight, the comment that My Space was "ghetto" became an echo chamber. It was "better" to have FaceBook.... so I feel this speaks to the argument made by Lessig in 'A Dot's Life".... "We can call each constraint a “regulator,” and we can think of each as a distinct modality of regulation. Each modality has a complex nature, and the interaction among these four is also hard to describe." All the rules of a "regulator" apply when looking at social media sites. So again I wonder ~ how did one become real and one become not? In the way we leave lasting digital footprints every time we log onto sites, isn't that even more "real" than footprints washed away from a beach where we physically walked? Is it possible that the day we look at the some of the parts as our "whole" life, we will have stronger "real" life?Caroline 16:43, 5 February 2013 (EST)

“Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born.” ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

"While I am fully supportive of the need to combat intellectual piracy, specifically dealing with foreign rogue digital theft sites, legislation must not impede freedom of expression on the internet and online innovation. We must work to find an approach that protects content and the freedom of distribution and technology that is smart and targeted without stifling the innovators and entrepreneurs that make San Francisco and the Bay Area so vibrant." Nancy Peolosi February 2012 Letter to constituents regarding SOPA

“No one who uses the Internet on a regular basis needs reminding about the perils of spam, phishing, data breaches, hackers, viruses, spyware, and denial of service attacks that make up part of the modern Internet traffic. Almost all such problems can be chalked up to generative systems; closed systems, like the Xbox 360, TiVo, and the PS3, may have their own issues but don't regularly experience the same problems. It's no wonder that, in the face of such threats, many users would prefer something simpler and locked-down in exchange for security. But it's not just end users who run into problems with generative devices and networks; governments and content owners would both prefer devices and networks that could be monitored and controlled at least a little more tightly. Attempts to alter the fundamental PC architecture in such a way that it is "trusted" (by content owners and third-parties, at least) have met stiff resistance on the part of buyers, who now instinctively view to computers as fully generative devices that should remain under their personal control.” Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from Ars Technica)

I would argue that even before we decide on a structure to view the internet and digital technologies through, we need a clear understanding of how we, human beings, interact with our environments. Here, in the United States, we seem perfectly happy to give away freedoms guaranteed by our constitution in the name of safety. And Dostoevsky’s quote demonstrates we are not alone in that. We can look at legal frameworks, or technological frameworks, but ultimately we are human beings, and though the internet may be the most amazing tool we have yet to develop, I would assert we do not have a particularly good track record when it comes to preserving our freedoms, or valuing our public goods.Raven 17:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)


This is a tangent related to the tangent made in class on the readability of Terms of Services. I'm one of those who usually doesn't read Terms of Services, especially those not having to do with the bank. But the discussion raised my curiosity, so when I was considering setting up a tumblr account so I can participate with my friends, I stopped to read tumblr's Terms of Service, which is located here: http://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/terms_of_service

Perhaps I'm lucky since tumblr does not fit into the examples made in class. Tumblr's Terms of Service is very readable and accessible, and Tumblr actually states that they deliberately made it so. If the legal text itself is still a bit too lofty, especially for younger visitors, then Tumblr's summaries after each section will do the job as well.

Some parts are even humorous. Take for example the annotations for the section on Eligibilty: "You have to be at least 13 years old to use Tumblr. We're serious: it's a hard rule, based on U.S. federal and state legislation, even if you're 12.9 years old. If you're younger than 13, don't use Tumblr. Ask your parents for an Xbox or try books."

--Muromi 03:37, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Danah Boyd’s article was really disappointing because he could have truly made it interesting and signficiant. Not being a fan of either My Space or Facebook, at least until recently for the latter as I feel it is a good medium to communicate with "Friends" in remote and/or far away places. The article contained several foundation facts and helped me understand some of the differences, but not much more and continued to make the point over and over again with case studies that demonstrated the same points over and over again.

I feel Mr. (Ms?) Boyd should have added a lot more foundational information and perhaps not only argued the differences between the two social networks, but give his/her opinion and facts why.

This is in response to Muromi's comments on the Tumblr [1] Terms of Service [2], but I promise to bring it back to our readings. I've been a long-term fan of Tumblr, and I can say that the Tumblr TOS is a reflection of the Tumblr experience. The contributors tend to be serious: CJ Chivers of the New York Times[3]; Anthony De Rosa of Reuters [4]; informative: America's Test Kitchen [5]; but also playful: Sesame Street[6]. PR and Marketing, though in evidence, are done with an effort to integrate into the user community: The Economist[7]; LLBean [8]; The Atlantic[9]; The New Yorker[10].

Other contributors who show up on one's dashboard, and with whom one can interact directly by reblogging (a way of responding, but also of reposting) can start to feel like friends in a distinctly different way then the term friend is used by Facebook. There is, of course, a running joke among long-time users that 40% of one's followers are high school students from Japan, and occasionally a spam problem pops up. But generally the experience is one of openness, friendliness and creativity. The TOS is just one aspect of this, but it demonstrates how some thoughtfulness on the part of founders can go a long way to contributing to a positive user experience.

To bring this back on topic, unlike the Facebook, MySpace dichotomy posed by Danah Boyd, Tumblr truly can belong to anyone[11][12]. One does not need friends already on the site to begin participating, one just follows people one is interested in following. Despite my earlier comment about high school students in Japan, if someone reblogs someone and responds thoughtfully to a post, the response usually is an inclusion into the conversation and a follow.

Truly no one knows your age, race and class if you choose not to provide that information. One can participate wholly with links to photographs and music - and many do[13].Finally, unlike the faux creativity touted by MySpace and its fans, Tumblr users are the real deal, people of all ages who post original writing, drawing, photography and music for the world rather than limiting themselves to changing the template upon which their user page is viewed (although this too is possible on Tumblr[14]).

Lawrence Lessig's Tumblr is here: http://lessig.tumblr.com/

Raven 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Paradigms_for_Studying_the_Internet&oldid=10000"