Assignment 2 Submissions

From Technologies of Politics and Control
Revision as of 17:24, 2 March 2013 by Zak Paster (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Assignments

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting | Submissions
Due February 12

Assignment 2 | Submissions
Due February 26

Working in a group?
Let us know by March 12

Assignment 3 | Submissions
Due March 26

Assignment 4 | Submissions
Due April 23

Extra Credit | Submissions
Due May 7

Final Project | Submissions
Due May 14

Submission Instructions

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

Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment2," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters. So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment2.doc."

Upload your rough draft here: Upload file. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the list of uploaded files.

In the submissions section below please post the following information:

  • Name or pseudonym:
  • Prospectus title:
  • Link to prospectus: (add your link here)

Comments

Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 5 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post. If we don't know who you are we can't give you credit for finishing this assignment!


Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.” Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx Interestingcomments 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --Dear Alice 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. Milenagrado 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: "Asmith" Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People” Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc

Asmith 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --Dear Alice 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism" Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf Rich 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.JW 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: AaronEttl Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies" Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx AaronEttl 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: Hgaylor Prospectus:“Access for Open and Secure Communication” An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645

Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. AaronEttl 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: Dear Alice Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations" Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx --Dear Alice 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?Raven 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Michael Keane "A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx

Michaelekeane 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Rebekahjudson Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?" Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf

Rebekahjudson 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. Asmith 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)


Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx

Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? Mattyh 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Matthew D. Haney "Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx

Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?JW 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Milenagrado "Duolingo and Copyright Issues" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc Milenagrado 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. AaronEttl 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Tessa May 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?Raven 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Reposted following deletion/edit conflict Raven 13:31, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Alicia Phan | APhan "Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx APhan 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action Fraley v. Facebook.JW 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? Mattyh 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 _USER777 . Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx user777 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)

User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. Mattyh 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Muromi Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf --Muromi 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I think it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.JW 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Zak Paster: How will you estimate "effective fundraising" for Research Question A? Question C seems large enough to be the entire project as "conduct external research about online giving and associated industry trends" is a large undertaking. Mattyh 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)

RobMcLain Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx

RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?JW 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) Mattyh 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

The Right to be Forgotten http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc Caroline 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.JW 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? Asmith 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. Johnathan Merkwan 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Jonathan Merkwan: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail Mattyh 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Name or pseudonym: Free speech, Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.” Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx (Free speech 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))

Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.Milenagrado 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
Phil: I wonder how you will "avoid direct engagement with members of the community" when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?JW 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
  • @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. Phildade 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Name: Susan Goldstein Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?” Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx Susan Goldstein 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)JW 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)


Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --Dear Alice 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST) Kaley Sweeney Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx

Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea!JW 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Raven 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. Asmith 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)



Saridder 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST) saridder Steve Ridder

The Digital Marketplace

Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Steve_Ridder_Assignment_2.docx

Saridder 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. Asmith 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)


María Paz Jurado Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa! http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf --Maria 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)

María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, Steam, etc.JW 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. Mattyh 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)


Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.Zak Paster 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

John Floyd Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt Johnfloyd6675 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)

John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this? Good luck. I look forward to your final result. Raven 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: CyberRalph Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx CyberRalph 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Name or pseudonym: Julian Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt Julian 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.JW 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Aly Barbour Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx Alybarbour 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.

Pseudonym: JW

Prospectus title: Reddit's Dox Paradox: Proper or Not?

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txtJW 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)

JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? Asmith 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)


Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx Jax 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.” What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this approach, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. Zak Paster 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)


Becca Luberoff
Prospectus title: Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx
BeccaLuberoff 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?JW 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? Mattyh 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: baughller Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx

I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. AaronEttl 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&oldid=9826"