Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2013-03-05T21:47:42Z

Alybarbour: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. Today’s class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution.

'''[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-03-05-Copyright1.pdf Download slides for this week's class.]'''

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The second half of assignment 2 (commenting on prospectuses) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics] (read only Who Can Claim Copyright?, What Works Are Protected?, What is Not Protected by Copyright?, How to Secure a Copyright, and How Long Copyright Protection Endures)

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]

* [http://blip.tv/lessig/it-is-about-time-getting-our-values-around-copyright-2847688 Lawrence Lessig, It is About Time: Getting Our Values around Copyright] (watch first 6 minutes)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-insane/ James Grimmelmann, Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Video Copyright Went Insane]

* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]

* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, ''Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy''] (Introduction only)

* Creative Commons, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko A Shared Culture] (video, watch all) and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 Spectrum of Rights]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/ Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
The gloss we're doing in class on the duration of copyright terms is a bit simplified. For a more detailed chart discussing copyright duration, check out the chart developed by [http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Cornell's Copyright Information Center].

== Class Discussion ==
<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>

I was somewhat surprised by the tone of Julian Sanchez', Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy. It reads as if it were written by some type of torrent-freak railing against legitimate business, and is about as informative. While his fundamental point that it is hard to quantify the harm copyright piracy does in terms of economic loss and jobs lost is reasonable, he does nothing to argue against the undeniable fact that the United States (and Canada) do lose jobs and money due to the piracy. Sanchez' point "When someone torrents a $12 album that they would have otherwise purchased, the record industry loses $12, to be sure. But that doesn't mean that $12 has magically vanished from the economy. On the contrary: someone has gotten the value of the album and still has $12 to spend somewhere else" is just flat out wrong. It may be valid when an American steals from an American, or a Canadian steals from a Canadian, but it does not apply when a Canadian steals from an American, or more problematically, when China and the rest of the world steal from America. The US trade deficit with China is enormous. This is due in quite a significant part to the fact that we import and pay for enormous amounts of manufactured goods from China, while China imports, but does not pay for enormous amounts of IP from the US and Canada (think fake Apple phones, hacked MS office, every single hollywood movie and song, serious technical data and research). While Sanchez might not want to pay $100 for MS Word or $20 for a movie, he should think twice before accepting the argument that the 6.1 billion people in the rest of the world do not have to pay the US for IP. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Josh. I'm not sure if Sanchez meant to take on the second question as to how much damage is caused to the American economy by piracy. As to the "$12" discussion you mentioned, I agree that Sanchez is being a bit too fast and loose here, but I think what he is driving at is more macroscopic: that the presence of downloading for consumption of works doesn't have a substantial impact on the discretionary spending budgeted by citizens in America – the same amount of money is being spent, it is just being reallocated. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I do know that studies that have looked at the microeconomic dimension of that – that is, whether each download should be valued as a lost sale – have suggested largely that it does not. Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf have the [http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/ec106/strumpf.pdf most famous examination on point] (and their study has [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014399 its critics]), but other studies done by [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21view.html?_r=4& Wharton] and others have reinforced the general point. My point in including in today's reading was not to suggest that the RIAA is wrong and that Sanchez is right; it is rather to highlight the fact that we are trying to legislate in an area that is famous for a lot of hyperbolic talk and little empirical analysis. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 12:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Andy - That's useful background. I do believe Joshywonder's point is an important one. Having lived in a country (briefly) in which powerful anti-U.S. forces are a component of the government, and frequently finding U.S. movies on the street with sophisticated packaging materials for @$1, it was hard not to come to the conclusion that a little bit of economic warfare was occurring. People used their (hard to get) European student and travel visas for copious copying of US programming and would distribute these free among friends (think in terms of hours or days of constant downloading and in terms of multiple seasons of multiple TV shows), and you could understand why they were willing to do this because US programming was expensive to get and came from outside this country, and also because US movies and TV shows purchased legally were insanely expensive. Most of us living there on US salaries and with housing and food subsidies were living quite well, but when I went to legally purchase a movie as a gift, I was astonished at the cost (close to $30 US dollars).
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:14, 5 March 2013 (EST)

::And of course, you don't even have to go to overseas to see US movies on the street for $1. [http://piracy.americanassembly.org/the-report/ The Social Science Research Council] did a deep dig into it in 2011 and found that the rampant piracy in many countries is attributable to a few different factors, but principally what you flagged: a lack of antipiracy education and the overwhelmingly high cost of local legal alternatives. I would also be remiss not to mention that America's longstanding legacy in the international community was as pirates ourselves – we were very, very slow to recognize international copyright standards (over 100 years late in joining the Berne Convention), and used [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_clause all sorts of legal tricks] to inject foreign works into the public domain here. As small anecdotal example, Charles Dickens [http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/pva75.html very famously railed] against the lack of copyright protection of his works in the United States. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 14:50, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

The Ars Technica article was very intriguing and made me think of the landscape of Internet access with the high fixed costs of transitioning to a fiber optic network. I’m sure that laying cables, etc. was extremely costly (which we have reviewed in previous lectures). However it opened the doors to much greater advancements in technology. I believe that if subsidies were somehow provided to entice companies to build fiber optic networks then the internet may experience a harkening much to the likes of cable television. And with greater technological advancement will surely come greater legal points of contention. I wonder if the legal battle for transmitting copyrighted information will become more heated as technology continues to progress. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 11:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

Grimmelman’s article on the madness of the Cablevision case really encapsulated the crux of the copyright debate for me. Grimmelman concludes: “Instead of asking which back-end technologies are legal, it might make more sense to ask what it is legal for users to do with computers on the front end.” An astute point that should be obvious (and I personally loved Grimmelman’s irreverent tone to reinforce this). The protection of copyright is a dense, complicated problem in the digital era, but to make progress, we have to be able to agree on some sensible underlying assumptions. Namely, that “copying” and “performing” is different in the digital world than in the analog world. Consequently 1.) we can't directly apply old copyright regulations to new ones and 2.) we ought to apply copyright regulations as they relate to users’ uses rather than some obscure behind the scenes minutiae.

Reading Grimmelman’s article, I was blown away by the technical intricacies of de-duplicaton, public performance, and what constitutes as a “copy.” Absent from the discussion surrounding Cablevision were issues of user practices, fair use, and rethinking the nature of a digital copy. As Lawrence Lessig points out, the technology with which we access our culture today has changed – copying is ubiquitous in our creative “remix” culture. And so while I think few people fall into the extremes of “abolish copyright altogether” or “preserve everything bout old copyright” it’s important to recognize, as Lessig says of Aaron Swartz’s work, when to recognize “dumb copyright.” I think by focusing too heavily on analog metaphors and technical loop-holes, we do little to combat dumb copyright.

Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject:

Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

The prosecution of You Tube videos when a "performance" is uploaded of a toddler dancing to a pop music hit seems to me to be self-defeating and more in the sphere of 20th century thinking, such as when the music industry flailed about trying to stop digital downloads of their music. Times change, and the intellectual property laws that were lobbied for at one time and passed must be re-thought in the digital age. Needless to say, other countries around the world mercilessly copy and sell material such as DVD's of movies and music. This is nothing new, and it has not stopped. Clothing is copied in the same manner. Prosecuting citizens of your own country for enthusiatically promoting a brand for free on You Tube or anywhere else on social media or in person at a non-profit exhibition, or even for profit in a cover performance is to me the worse excess of over regulation. Performers can make money off of live performance instead of through digital sales. A copy of clothing is not the real thing, and those who can afford the real thing would never wear a copy, such as a Rolex on the corner. The customer base is grown through copies, not diminished. The global economy solves that problem. When corporations and laws focus on free trade in the global market and seek their profit points from live performance and pushing related items such as digital memberships for exclusive content, and interaction with the performers and creators of the art, intellectual property law will no longer be grasping at straws attempting to regulate across national lines into another country and have when that fails, go after their own fan base! Profit centers change, and in the digital age regulation and control have a place, but are not a replacement for the free market and competition that is able to flourish on world stage.

[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 13:15, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Wikipedia's and the U.S. Copyright Office's explanation of copyright made the law seem straightforward and easy to understand. But once the readings and video started tackling the copyright issues in the internet realm, everything became rather confusing. This is partly my fault for not knowing a lot about copyright law, but from what I've read, it seems like the courts (and legislatures?) are also still trying to figure how the copyright system should work in cyberspace.

Is the problem because we're trying to apply a system of laws that was originally developed to regulate mostly ideas fixated on tangible objects (books, cds, records) on a virtual platform? The debate about what kind of "copies" are legal (see e.g. the Ars Technica reading on Video Copyright) result in strange rules/law, as Grimmelmann summarizes: "A million viewers and a million copies—OK. A million viewers but only one copy—not OK."

If the copyright law is interpreted broadly, I think a lot of normal online activity infringes the law. And yet it's so easy to click to a page, save a chunk of text, movie, and/or image one likes, then share it somewhere else, making more and more copies. Are these activities infringing copyright law? It's not fair use, it's more like sharing. In the physical world, I would share a book I like by actually lending it to a friend and not photocopying it because of the hassle; but when applied online, the matter is as simple as a right click of a file, then "copy" then "paste." And the paste can result in tons of copies without much effort.

Perhaps a new system should be created for the internet, instead of just applying the old principles of copyright. Creative Commons is a step in that direction, but the issues dealing with traditional intellectual property (such as music and books published by by brick-and-mortar businesses) going online still aren't solved.

I think Lawrence Lessig made an important point reminding his audience that the purpose of copyright law isn't supposed to make money for the rights holder, although that's a nice reward, and there are business models built around that (e.g. the music and movie industry). Rather, the purpose of copyright is to provide the incentives to create an environment that fosters creativity and discussion. Any thinking on how copyright should apply to the internet should keep these goals in mind.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

I found the video Creative Commons very inspiring. This video really harnessed my view on the globalization of technology. The view that sharing content can advance education, technology, medicine, just to name a few areas is not new. While most countries and companies hold their intellectual property close to their chest and will fight tooth and nail to take anyone down who infringes on it, we should evolve as a culture to allow for a shared space. This shared space could provide the insight to allow for advancement rather than stagnation. One little binary code, or biological sequence can inspire another individual to change the world. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:35, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

The readings this week are well balanced: past, present, and future. The overview about Limitations on Exclusive Rights (17 USC § 107) and Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works (17 USC § 106) sets the stage for copyright regulations, dating back to the U.S. Constitution. The examples in the other articles draw attention to present-day legal debates, such as Internet streaming (i.e., the son of cable). And, the Creative Commons (CC) video/article, is a segue to the future of copyright regulation and knowledge transfer. From my perspective, the future outlook is an interesting scenario to consider.

During the first month of this course, we've learned that the boundaries surrounding online regulation and sovereignty are complex. Online copyright follows suite. Literary, musical, dramatic arts, choreographic works, and motion pictures, among the other forms of communication (outlined in 17 USC § 106) are continuously shared, yet who becomes the ultimate online police? Much like freedom of speech, it seems almost impossible to define the boundaries of copyright infringement in cyberspace. When intellectual capital (IC) is shared without approval, where is the line drawn? From the standpoint of last week’s “third-party provider articles,” the stakeholder web appears even more convoluted. IC passes from hand to hand, server to server, website to website. Who assumes accountability?

CC is interesting because it opens the door for knowledge sharing, and anyone can participate. It promotes “creativity, collaboration, and access.” I personally like the mission stated in the video: ''CC moves away from content control and thinks in terms of communications, bringing communities together through open-ended collaboration.'' This concept is in-line with the “online freedom of speech argument,” promoting creativity as a means to become more united. Creating and sharing within an online global community generates different outcomes versus building legal walls (i.e., copyright restrictions).

What do others think about the CC-form of communication and expression? Can this collaborative concept dominate the web, or will restrictions trump open-ended communication? Are there parallel online communities that mirror the Creative Commons’ concept? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***
I really enjoyed reading material for today’s lecture, however the main question arises as to why can’t we apply the laws of intellectual property in a simple and coherent manner? In my view, the law of copyright seems to be falling apart, while restricting the information that can change the world and [could] alter the research and development of new and improved results of diverse frameworks. What about community? How can we share intellectual information if it’s so drastically protected? The article of Grimmelmann portrays an interesting view of copyright of video industry, which has its own architecture of copyright law (fees for Netflix and hulu as an example), however, how about those individuals/countries that cannot afford the copyright [fees] conditions? While watching the video about Creative Commons on A Shared Culture, I was definitely inspired about the comments that were made, which I completely agree with. I believe that laws do get in the way; furthermore, a shared community must exist (and it does at some extend) in order for diverse societies to be able to adapt by the laws, which must portray a source of freedom within creative and intellectual spectrums.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
***

Wikipedia gave a brief and general description of the Copyright clause of the US Constitution, the history and origin of the copyright language and its effects. I've come to expect a bit more out of the Wikipedia community and was a bit surprised that there wasn't more content on it, especially considering the controversial nature of copyright laws.

The first six minutes of the Lessig speech and his first point - the elephant in the room - seemed to me to neglect the idea that while the Internet is a place where massive amount of information is available virtually, the same information is still available through more traditional means and in physical form. This point is important because much of the world has access to traditional (i.e. pre-online) access to information and do not need to violate copyright law in order to access it. The counterpoint to my point would obviously be that much of the world does not have access to traditional forms of information and the Internet is their best and only means to obtain such information. However, I think it remains important to point out that convenience should not be a justification, in and of itself, to tear down copyright laws.

Finally, I struggle to understand the perspective those who are hostile towards the very existence of any copyright law. Copyright law protects the motivation and incentive for profit-seeking institutions to create and help advance the world by offering more choices, whether the purposes of their products or services are educational, entertainment, scientific or other purposes. It is true that those with altruistic motivations (i.e. those who create for the purposes of the proverbial "greater good" of society or the world) can and have made major contributions, but to ignore the value in protecting intellectual property of profit-seekers and those who want to protect what they create for any other purposes, will remove the incentive for a massive portion of the creative world to continue to produce.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:53, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks, Ralph. If you're still hungry for more reading about the Copyright Clause and its history, I would strongly recommend Dotan Oliar's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ip/oliar_ipclause.pdf The Origins and Meanings of the Intellectual Property Clause]. His is probably the leader in the space about what was going on in the Framers' minds when the clause was drafted. And I wouldn't presume to speak for Lessig, but he has been rather insistent throughout all of his scholarship that he is not a copyright abolitionist. The question for him (and for me, and for many, many legal scholars out there) is not the whether, but the how – what is the appropriate calibration of rights and limitations that would afford authors sufficient (and appropriate) compensation for their works, while also allowing the general public sufficient freedom to expand and build upon existing works in order to further our scientific and artistic progress.[[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

This week at the computer was pure ecstasy. I love the articles that we read for class and the informative nature of this material. The copyright problem as exasperated with the current issues is probably the most interesting thing ever. So, when I went to that site called Creative Commons, I felt like the world was lifted off by back. I sat in front of my computer and was elated. Then, I realized that the articles listed there were open copyright copyrights and basically send up the idea that the whole situation there is just about as fabulous as a Project Runway show where intelligent designers get their ideas stolen by people with more intellectual capital. So regardless as this is, the differing platforms and the differing modes of media interpretation, show how people online can steal eachother's ideas, even if not the spellcheck. So this weeks readings left me in a tizzy about lecture today and I know that regardless of this exoneration of say, multiple cycles of cyclical group therapy, aka communism, that the internet is certainly a place I will continue to play on for years to come. Thank you for you time. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

I thought this was a good basic overview of copyright law and the Creative Commons license. However I would have liked a bit more background (thanks for providing the link) on current copyright law, and a bit more critique on the Creative Commons licenses. I found a Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons, on the Creative Commons license that contained some links to critical voices. I also found a paper that went a bit into who is using the licenses and how they are using them herehttp://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol4-1/coates.asp. The author of the article, Jessica Coates, was the Project Manager at the Creative Commons Clinic at Queensland University of Technology at the time the paper was written. The Creative Commons website contains a list of articles here:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Scholarship_and_critique_regarding_Creative_Commons

According to the Creative Commons website, this is the current breakdown of usage, charts are available on the site. See the site for how the data was gathered and the caveats on usage) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_statistics
"These charts show a breakdown of the types of licenses deployed and the properties of deployed licenses, based on Yahoo! queries as of 2006-06-13. (As above the Google API is now superior for an aggregate count, but Yahoo link: searches are superior for measuring the relative deployment of specific licenses and thus specific license types.)"

by: 96.6%

nc: 67.5%

nd: 24.3%

sa: 45.4%

Finally, knowing little more about current copyright law and use then can be found in this class and in the media, one of the critiques mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Creative Commons had me wanting to know more:

"Péter Benjamin Tóth asserts that Creative Commons' objectives are already well served by the current copyright system, and that Creative Commons' "some rights reserved" slogan, as opposed to the "all rights reserved" principle, creates a false dichotomy. "Copyright provides a list of exclusive rights to the rightholder, from which he decides which ones he wishes to 'sell' or grant and which to retain. The 'some rights reserved' concept is therefore not an alternative to, but rather the very nature of classical copyright." The link for this quote is here:^ Tóth, Péter Benjamin (2009). Creative Humbug. Indicare Project http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=118

I suppose the response to this argument is that one would have to track the creator down and request permission for use, whereas the Creative Commons license allows this info to be embedded by machine language and carried across the web with the material, but without digging into the articles on the Creative Commons website and elsewhere on the web, I really don't know enough (and obviously, I'd like to) to have an opinion on whether or not the Creative Commons licenses are truly a solution to the problem to which tonight's readings point.

[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing that, Raven. We will (time permitting) be digging into the limitations of the Creative Commons solutions tonight, but I do appreciate you flagging them here as well. More criticism can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons#Criticism here]. I'd note that much of the modern criticism around Creative Commons (especially as version 4.0 of the licenses is soon to be deployed) is not based on the premise, but on the execution – wondering whether and to what extent the licenses may develop inconsistencies or may be incompatible with other open source licenses (such as the GNU FSF or MIT licenses). My response to Tóth would begin with what you flagged already – that it would be impossible to actually track down each specific user to secure the rights to do many things online. Tóth is correct that the rights granted under copyright (for the most part) are optionally enforceable, but there's a big difference in execution between deciding whether to exercise that option in the moment and communicating to the world that you can use this affirmatively. As to whether it "erodes" copyright, another popular criticism, perhaps most famously brought by ASCAP, I personally don't find much credence in it. Creative Commons very much depends on copyright in order to work, as enforcement for violation of a CC term (e.g., using CC-BY-NC works for commercial purposes, or CC-BY works without attribution) would be an action for copyright infringement. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Katzer only major US case addressing open licenses] used this to find liability for violation of the GNU GPL. And by empowering authors to decide for themselves work-by-work the fundamental choice remains with the party who – as Tóth said – is empowered always under copyright law to make the choice. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

*****

As a nonphysical and interactive medium, the internet alters concepts of ownership, reproduction, and exchange. On the internet, people can can claim others' media and ideas much more subtly than in the physical world. Technologies that aggregate massive amounts of content, such as Google and Wikipedia, strip owners of control over their work . As Lessig argues, the internet has changed the way we interact with out culture, and thus, necessitated revision of how culture creators establish ownership. While less prohibitive licenses such as the Creative Commons have developed, these new terms of ownership do not mitigate the disconnect between content creators and online users/viewers. Not just copyright law must change, but also internet users' awareness of copyright law in of online work they hope to use. On the creators end, while uploading content, they should be able to designate copyright preferences. At the user endpoints, perhaps web browsers could have a feature that allows users to view the specified copyright of web content elements, similar to the web inspector tool. If there were more apparent ways for users and creators to interact with copyright, I wonder whether this would constrain accessibility to and sharing of information. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 13:17, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Lessig's article very much reminded me of a peice written by Adam Ludwin, venture capitalist focused on early stage finacing. The article is entiled The Age of the Meme (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/09/the-age-of-the-meme/ ) In it he writes "We are an always-on culture now. Social networks have reached critical mass. Inexpensive tools for creating and remixing content have been widely adopted. Our collective consciousness has come online. The intelligence in the system is now coming from below, not above. The sage on the stage is no more. And our collective mind is pumping out memes that are shaping every conceivable domain" We're creating culture from the bottom up not the top-down. The hive mind cycles through and collects inofrmation and spits out new beats of culture faster than any design firm or ad agency ever could These peices which " go viral;" have a histroy un to their own. Cultural relevence for fleeting and passing moments. Who do these artifacts eally belong to? Is an image when captured by the hive mind still the property of its owner? How about a piece of music sampled in a youtube clip? Do the owners of Grumpy Cat own the image of grumpy cat? At what point does surrendering something to the internet mean giving it up as celebrities give up some of their writes as private individuals when entering the spotlight? The internet after all is a giant copying machine. Lessig talks about unintended casualties. I hope our freedom to create, rehash, redesign, copy paste, delete, morph, mash isn't one of them. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2013-03-05T21:42:39Z

Alybarbour: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. Today’s class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution.

'''[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-03-05-Copyright1.pdf Download slides for this week's class.]'''

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The second half of assignment 2 (commenting on prospectuses) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics] (read only Who Can Claim Copyright?, What Works Are Protected?, What is Not Protected by Copyright?, How to Secure a Copyright, and How Long Copyright Protection Endures)

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]

* [http://blip.tv/lessig/it-is-about-time-getting-our-values-around-copyright-2847688 Lawrence Lessig, It is About Time: Getting Our Values around Copyright] (watch first 6 minutes)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-insane/ James Grimmelmann, Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Video Copyright Went Insane]

* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]

* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, ''Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy''] (Introduction only)

* Creative Commons, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko A Shared Culture] (video, watch all) and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 Spectrum of Rights]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/ Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
The gloss we're doing in class on the duration of copyright terms is a bit simplified. For a more detailed chart discussing copyright duration, check out the chart developed by [http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Cornell's Copyright Information Center].

== Class Discussion ==
<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>

I was somewhat surprised by the tone of Julian Sanchez', Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy. It reads as if it were written by some type of torrent-freak railing against legitimate business, and is about as informative. While his fundamental point that it is hard to quantify the harm copyright piracy does in terms of economic loss and jobs lost is reasonable, he does nothing to argue against the undeniable fact that the United States (and Canada) do lose jobs and money due to the piracy. Sanchez' point "When someone torrents a $12 album that they would have otherwise purchased, the record industry loses $12, to be sure. But that doesn't mean that $12 has magically vanished from the economy. On the contrary: someone has gotten the value of the album and still has $12 to spend somewhere else" is just flat out wrong. It may be valid when an American steals from an American, or a Canadian steals from a Canadian, but it does not apply when a Canadian steals from an American, or more problematically, when China and the rest of the world steal from America. The US trade deficit with China is enormous. This is due in quite a significant part to the fact that we import and pay for enormous amounts of manufactured goods from China, while China imports, but does not pay for enormous amounts of IP from the US and Canada (think fake Apple phones, hacked MS office, every single hollywood movie and song, serious technical data and research). While Sanchez might not want to pay $100 for MS Word or $20 for a movie, he should think twice before accepting the argument that the 6.1 billion people in the rest of the world do not have to pay the US for IP. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Josh. I'm not sure if Sanchez meant to take on the second question as to how much damage is caused to the American economy by piracy. As to the "$12" discussion you mentioned, I agree that Sanchez is being a bit too fast and loose here, but I think what he is driving at is more macroscopic: that the presence of downloading for consumption of works doesn't have a substantial impact on the discretionary spending budgeted by citizens in America – the same amount of money is being spent, it is just being reallocated. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I do know that studies that have looked at the microeconomic dimension of that – that is, whether each download should be valued as a lost sale – have suggested largely that it does not. Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf have the [http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/ec106/strumpf.pdf most famous examination on point] (and their study has [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014399 its critics]), but other studies done by [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21view.html?_r=4& Wharton] and others have reinforced the general point. My point in including in today's reading was not to suggest that the RIAA is wrong and that Sanchez is right; it is rather to highlight the fact that we are trying to legislate in an area that is famous for a lot of hyperbolic talk and little empirical analysis. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 12:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Andy - That's useful background. I do believe Joshywonder's point is an important one. Having lived in a country (briefly) in which powerful anti-U.S. forces are a component of the government, and frequently finding U.S. movies on the street with sophisticated packaging materials for @$1, it was hard not to come to the conclusion that a little bit of economic warfare was occurring. People used their (hard to get) European student and travel visas for copious copying of US programming and would distribute these free among friends (think in terms of hours or days of constant downloading and in terms of multiple seasons of multiple TV shows), and you could understand why they were willing to do this because US programming was expensive to get and came from outside this country, and also because US movies and TV shows purchased legally were insanely expensive. Most of us living there on US salaries and with housing and food subsidies were living quite well, but when I went to legally purchase a movie as a gift, I was astonished at the cost (close to $30 US dollars).
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:14, 5 March 2013 (EST)

::And of course, you don't even have to go to overseas to see US movies on the street for $1. [http://piracy.americanassembly.org/the-report/ The Social Science Research Council] did a deep dig into it in 2011 and found that the rampant piracy in many countries is attributable to a few different factors, but principally what you flagged: a lack of antipiracy education and the overwhelmingly high cost of local legal alternatives. I would also be remiss not to mention that America's longstanding legacy in the international community was as pirates ourselves – we were very, very slow to recognize international copyright standards (over 100 years late in joining the Berne Convention), and used [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_clause all sorts of legal tricks] to inject foreign works into the public domain here. As small anecdotal example, Charles Dickens [http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/pva75.html very famously railed] against the lack of copyright protection of his works in the United States. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 14:50, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

The Ars Technica article was very intriguing and made me think of the landscape of Internet access with the high fixed costs of transitioning to a fiber optic network. I’m sure that laying cables, etc. was extremely costly (which we have reviewed in previous lectures). However it opened the doors to much greater advancements in technology. I believe that if subsidies were somehow provided to entice companies to build fiber optic networks then the internet may experience a harkening much to the likes of cable television. And with greater technological advancement will surely come greater legal points of contention. I wonder if the legal battle for transmitting copyrighted information will become more heated as technology continues to progress. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 11:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

Grimmelman’s article on the madness of the Cablevision case really encapsulated the crux of the copyright debate for me. Grimmelman concludes: “Instead of asking which back-end technologies are legal, it might make more sense to ask what it is legal for users to do with computers on the front end.” An astute point that should be obvious (and I personally loved Grimmelman’s irreverent tone to reinforce this). The protection of copyright is a dense, complicated problem in the digital era, but to make progress, we have to be able to agree on some sensible underlying assumptions. Namely, that “copying” and “performing” is different in the digital world than in the analog world. Consequently 1.) we can't directly apply old copyright regulations to new ones and 2.) we ought to apply copyright regulations as they relate to users’ uses rather than some obscure behind the scenes minutiae.

Reading Grimmelman’s article, I was blown away by the technical intricacies of de-duplicaton, public performance, and what constitutes as a “copy.” Absent from the discussion surrounding Cablevision were issues of user practices, fair use, and rethinking the nature of a digital copy. As Lawrence Lessig points out, the technology with which we access our culture today has changed – copying is ubiquitous in our creative “remix” culture. And so while I think few people fall into the extremes of “abolish copyright altogether” or “preserve everything bout old copyright” it’s important to recognize, as Lessig says of Aaron Swartz’s work, when to recognize “dumb copyright.” I think by focusing too heavily on analog metaphors and technical loop-holes, we do little to combat dumb copyright.

Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject:

Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

The prosecution of You Tube videos when a "performance" is uploaded of a toddler dancing to a pop music hit seems to me to be self-defeating and more in the sphere of 20th century thinking, such as when the music industry flailed about trying to stop digital downloads of their music. Times change, and the intellectual property laws that were lobbied for at one time and passed must be re-thought in the digital age. Needless to say, other countries around the world mercilessly copy and sell material such as DVD's of movies and music. This is nothing new, and it has not stopped. Clothing is copied in the same manner. Prosecuting citizens of your own country for enthusiatically promoting a brand for free on You Tube or anywhere else on social media or in person at a non-profit exhibition, or even for profit in a cover performance is to me the worse excess of over regulation. Performers can make money off of live performance instead of through digital sales. A copy of clothing is not the real thing, and those who can afford the real thing would never wear a copy, such as a Rolex on the corner. The customer base is grown through copies, not diminished. The global economy solves that problem. When corporations and laws focus on free trade in the global market and seek their profit points from live performance and pushing related items such as digital memberships for exclusive content, and interaction with the performers and creators of the art, intellectual property law will no longer be grasping at straws attempting to regulate across national lines into another country and have when that fails, go after their own fan base! Profit centers change, and in the digital age regulation and control have a place, but are not a replacement for the free market and competition that is able to flourish on world stage.

[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 13:15, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Wikipedia's and the U.S. Copyright Office's explanation of copyright made the law seem straightforward and easy to understand. But once the readings and video started tackling the copyright issues in the internet realm, everything became rather confusing. This is partly my fault for not knowing a lot about copyright law, but from what I've read, it seems like the courts (and legislatures?) are also still trying to figure how the copyright system should work in cyberspace.

Is the problem because we're trying to apply a system of laws that was originally developed to regulate mostly ideas fixated on tangible objects (books, cds, records) on a virtual platform? The debate about what kind of "copies" are legal (see e.g. the Ars Technica reading on Video Copyright) result in strange rules/law, as Grimmelmann summarizes: "A million viewers and a million copies—OK. A million viewers but only one copy—not OK."

If the copyright law is interpreted broadly, I think a lot of normal online activity infringes the law. And yet it's so easy to click to a page, save a chunk of text, movie, and/or image one likes, then share it somewhere else, making more and more copies. Are these activities infringing copyright law? It's not fair use, it's more like sharing. In the physical world, I would share a book I like by actually lending it to a friend and not photocopying it because of the hassle; but when applied online, the matter is as simple as a right click of a file, then "copy" then "paste." And the paste can result in tons of copies without much effort.

Perhaps a new system should be created for the internet, instead of just applying the old principles of copyright. Creative Commons is a step in that direction, but the issues dealing with traditional intellectual property (such as music and books published by by brick-and-mortar businesses) going online still aren't solved.

I think Lawrence Lessig made an important point reminding his audience that the purpose of copyright law isn't supposed to make money for the rights holder, although that's a nice reward, and there are business models built around that (e.g. the music and movie industry). Rather, the purpose of copyright is to provide the incentives to create an environment that fosters creativity and discussion. Any thinking on how copyright should apply to the internet should keep these goals in mind.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

I found the video Creative Commons very inspiring. This video really harnessed my view on the globalization of technology. The view that sharing content can advance education, technology, medicine, just to name a few areas is not new. While most countries and companies hold their intellectual property close to their chest and will fight tooth and nail to take anyone down who infringes on it, we should evolve as a culture to allow for a shared space. This shared space could provide the insight to allow for advancement rather than stagnation. One little binary code, or biological sequence can inspire another individual to change the world. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:35, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

The readings this week are well balanced: past, present, and future. The overview about Limitations on Exclusive Rights (17 USC § 107) and Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works (17 USC § 106) sets the stage for copyright regulations, dating back to the U.S. Constitution. The examples in the other articles draw attention to present-day legal debates, such as Internet streaming (i.e., the son of cable). And, the Creative Commons (CC) video/article, is a segue to the future of copyright regulation and knowledge transfer. From my perspective, the future outlook is an interesting scenario to consider.

During the first month of this course, we've learned that the boundaries surrounding online regulation and sovereignty are complex. Online copyright follows suite. Literary, musical, dramatic arts, choreographic works, and motion pictures, among the other forms of communication (outlined in 17 USC § 106) are continuously shared, yet who becomes the ultimate online police? Much like freedom of speech, it seems almost impossible to define the boundaries of copyright infringement in cyberspace. When intellectual capital (IC) is shared without approval, where is the line drawn? From the standpoint of last week’s “third-party provider articles,” the stakeholder web appears even more convoluted. IC passes from hand to hand, server to server, website to website. Who assumes accountability?

CC is interesting because it opens the door for knowledge sharing, and anyone can participate. It promotes “creativity, collaboration, and access.” I personally like the mission stated in the video: ''CC moves away from content control and thinks in terms of communications, bringing communities together through open-ended collaboration.'' This concept is in-line with the “online freedom of speech argument,” promoting creativity as a means to become more united. Creating and sharing within an online global community generates different outcomes versus building legal walls (i.e., copyright restrictions).

What do others think about the CC-form of communication and expression? Can this collaborative concept dominate the web, or will restrictions trump open-ended communication? Are there parallel online communities that mirror the Creative Commons’ concept? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***
I really enjoyed reading material for today’s lecture, however the main question arises as to why can’t we apply the laws of intellectual property in a simple and coherent manner? In my view, the law of copyright seems to be falling apart, while restricting the information that can change the world and [could] alter the research and development of new and improved results of diverse frameworks. What about community? How can we share intellectual information if it’s so drastically protected? The article of Grimmelmann portrays an interesting view of copyright of video industry, which has its own architecture of copyright law (fees for Netflix and hulu as an example), however, how about those individuals/countries that cannot afford the copyright [fees] conditions? While watching the video about Creative Commons on A Shared Culture, I was definitely inspired about the comments that were made, which I completely agree with. I believe that laws do get in the way; furthermore, a shared community must exist (and it does at some extend) in order for diverse societies to be able to adapt by the laws, which must portray a source of freedom within creative and intellectual spectrums.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
***

Wikipedia gave a brief and general description of the Copyright clause of the US Constitution, the history and origin of the copyright language and its effects. I've come to expect a bit more out of the Wikipedia community and was a bit surprised that there wasn't more content on it, especially considering the controversial nature of copyright laws.

The first six minutes of the Lessig speech and his first point - the elephant in the room - seemed to me to neglect the idea that while the Internet is a place where massive amount of information is available virtually, the same information is still available through more traditional means and in physical form. This point is important because much of the world has access to traditional (i.e. pre-online) access to information and do not need to violate copyright law in order to access it. The counterpoint to my point would obviously be that much of the world does not have access to traditional forms of information and the Internet is their best and only means to obtain such information. However, I think it remains important to point out that convenience should not be a justification, in and of itself, to tear down copyright laws.

Finally, I struggle to understand the perspective those who are hostile towards the very existence of any copyright law. Copyright law protects the motivation and incentive for profit-seeking institutions to create and help advance the world by offering more choices, whether the purposes of their products or services are educational, entertainment, scientific or other purposes. It is true that those with altruistic motivations (i.e. those who create for the purposes of the proverbial "greater good" of society or the world) can and have made major contributions, but to ignore the value in protecting intellectual property of profit-seekers and those who want to protect what they create for any other purposes, will remove the incentive for a massive portion of the creative world to continue to produce.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:53, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks, Ralph. If you're still hungry for more reading about the Copyright Clause and its history, I would strongly recommend Dotan Oliar's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ip/oliar_ipclause.pdf The Origins and Meanings of the Intellectual Property Clause]. His is probably the leader in the space about what was going on in the Framers' minds when the clause was drafted. And I wouldn't presume to speak for Lessig, but he has been rather insistent throughout all of his scholarship that he is not a copyright abolitionist. The question for him (and for me, and for many, many legal scholars out there) is not the whether, but the how – what is the appropriate calibration of rights and limitations that would afford authors sufficient (and appropriate) compensation for their works, while also allowing the general public sufficient freedom to expand and build upon existing works in order to further our scientific and artistic progress.[[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

This week at the computer was pure ecstasy. I love the articles that we read for class and the informative nature of this material. The copyright problem as exasperated with the current issues is probably the most interesting thing ever. So, when I went to that site called Creative Commons, I felt like the world was lifted off by back. I sat in front of my computer and was elated. Then, I realized that the articles listed there were open copyright copyrights and basically send up the idea that the whole situation there is just about as fabulous as a Project Runway show where intelligent designers get their ideas stolen by people with more intellectual capital. So regardless as this is, the differing platforms and the differing modes of media interpretation, show how people online can steal eachother's ideas, even if not the spellcheck. So this weeks readings left me in a tizzy about lecture today and I know that regardless of this exoneration of say, multiple cycles of cyclical group therapy, aka communism, that the internet is certainly a place I will continue to play on for years to come. Thank you for you time. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

I thought this was a good basic overview of copyright law and the Creative Commons license. However I would have liked a bit more background (thanks for providing the link) on current copyright law, and a bit more critique on the Creative Commons licenses. I found a Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons, on the Creative Commons license that contained some links to critical voices. I also found a paper that went a bit into who is using the licenses and how they are using them herehttp://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol4-1/coates.asp. The author of the article, Jessica Coates, was the Project Manager at the Creative Commons Clinic at Queensland University of Technology at the time the paper was written. The Creative Commons website contains a list of articles here:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Scholarship_and_critique_regarding_Creative_Commons

According to the Creative Commons website, this is the current breakdown of usage, charts are available on the site. See the site for how the data was gathered and the caveats on usage) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_statistics
"These charts show a breakdown of the types of licenses deployed and the properties of deployed licenses, based on Yahoo! queries as of 2006-06-13. (As above the Google API is now superior for an aggregate count, but Yahoo link: searches are superior for measuring the relative deployment of specific licenses and thus specific license types.)"

by: 96.6%

nc: 67.5%

nd: 24.3%

sa: 45.4%

Finally, knowing little more about current copyright law and use then can be found in this class and in the media, one of the critiques mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Creative Commons had me wanting to know more:

"Péter Benjamin Tóth asserts that Creative Commons' objectives are already well served by the current copyright system, and that Creative Commons' "some rights reserved" slogan, as opposed to the "all rights reserved" principle, creates a false dichotomy. "Copyright provides a list of exclusive rights to the rightholder, from which he decides which ones he wishes to 'sell' or grant and which to retain. The 'some rights reserved' concept is therefore not an alternative to, but rather the very nature of classical copyright." The link for this quote is here:^ Tóth, Péter Benjamin (2009). Creative Humbug. Indicare Project http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=118

I suppose the response to this argument is that one would have to track the creator down and request permission for use, whereas the Creative Commons license allows this info to be embedded by machine language and carried across the web with the material, but without digging into the articles on the Creative Commons website and elsewhere on the web, I really don't know enough (and obviously, I'd like to) to have an opinion on whether or not the Creative Commons licenses are truly a solution to the problem to which tonight's readings point.

[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing that, Raven. We will (time permitting) be digging into the limitations of the Creative Commons solutions tonight, but I do appreciate you flagging them here as well. More criticism can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons#Criticism here]. I'd note that much of the modern criticism around Creative Commons (especially as version 4.0 of the licenses is soon to be deployed) is not based on the premise, but on the execution – wondering whether and to what extent the licenses may develop inconsistencies or may be incompatible with other open source licenses (such as the GNU FSF or MIT licenses). My response to Tóth would begin with what you flagged already – that it would be impossible to actually track down each specific user to secure the rights to do many things online. Tóth is correct that the rights granted under copyright (for the most part) are optionally enforceable, but there's a big difference in execution between deciding whether to exercise that option in the moment and communicating to the world that you can use this affirmatively. As to whether it "erodes" copyright, another popular criticism, perhaps most famously brought by ASCAP, I personally don't find much credence in it. Creative Commons very much depends on copyright in order to work, as enforcement for violation of a CC term (e.g., using CC-BY-NC works for commercial purposes, or CC-BY works without attribution) would be an action for copyright infringement. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Katzer only major US case addressing open licenses] used this to find liability for violation of the GNU GPL. And by empowering authors to decide for themselves work-by-work the fundamental choice remains with the party who – as Tóth said – is empowered always under copyright law to make the choice. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

*****

As a nonphysical and interactive medium, the internet alters concepts of ownership, reproduction, and exchange. On the internet, people can can claim others' media and ideas much more subtly than in the physical world. Technologies that aggregate massive amounts of content, such as Google and Wikipedia, strip owners of control over their work . As Lessig argues, the internet has changed the way we interact with out culture, and thus, necessitated revision of how culture creators establish ownership. While less prohibitive licenses such as the Creative Commons have developed, these new terms of ownership do not mitigate the disconnect between content creators and online users/viewers. Not just copyright law must change, but also internet users' awareness of copyright law in of online work they hope to use. On the creators end, while uploading content, they should be able to designate copyright preferences. At the user endpoints, perhaps web browsers could have a feature that allows users to view the specified copyright of web content elements, similar to the web inspector tool. If there were more apparent ways for users and creators to interact with copyright, I wonder whether this would constrain accessibility to and sharing of information. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 13:17, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Lessig'sarticle very much reminded me of a peice written by Adam Ludwin, venture capitalist focused on early stage finacing. The article is entiled The Age of the Meme (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/09/the-age-of-the-meme/ ) In it he writes "We are an always-on culture now. Social networks have reached critical mass. Inexpensive tools for creating and remixing content have been widely adopted. Our collective consciousness has come online. The intelligence in the system is now coming from below, not above. The sage on the stage is no more. And our collective mind is pumping out memes that are shaping every conceivable domain" We're creating culture from the bottom up not the top-down. The hive mind cycles through and collects inofrmation and spits out new beats of culture faster than any design firm or ad agency ever could These peices which " go viral;" have a histroy un to their own. Cultural relevence for fleeting and passing moments. Who do these artifacts eally belong to? Is an image when captured by the hive mind still the property of its owner? How about a piece of music sampled in a youtube clip? Do the owners of Grumpy Cat own the image of grumpy cat? At what point does surrendering something to the internet mean giving it up as celebrities give up some of their writes as private individuals when entering the spotlight? The internet after all is a giant copying machine. Lessig talks about unintended casualties. I hope our freedom to create, rehash, redesign, copy paste, delete, morph, mash isn't one of them. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T20:11:28Z

Alybarbour: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

''Please 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: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

In the [[#Submissions|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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) 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
[[User:Interestingcomments|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. --[[User:Dear Alice|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. [[User:Milenagrado|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
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
: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. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hello Asmith: This is a very interesting topic, I am intrigued to see what model you use to best compare the benefits and the limitations of introducing this new type of platform.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
ASmith:

It will be interesting to note if there are any major points of contention that arise with regards to where the community wants to take Diaspora which causes a significant number of its members to break off and take a separate version in a different direction. I'm not sure if the way its copyrighted will allow this but they could always start from scratch. Linux, for example, allows for the source code to be modified and distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes by anyone and this aspect of it has resulted in several very powerful flavors emerging (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, CentOS, etc...)

I think it will also be interesting to compare the values of the community as it exists today compared to the values to the community as it grows and changes. For example, I'd guess that the community that is taking interest in Diaspora today is largely between the ages of approximately mid teens and late 20's/early 30's. I'd also venture a guess that they are fairly tech saavy. If the community continues to grow and appeal to the general population and in three to five years from now enjoys more mainstream popularity, it's probably safe to say that different decisions about what direction to take the project will emerge.

In any case, this is a great topic choice. I'm sure it will be interesting to observe and write about.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 08:32, 5 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
[[User:Rich|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 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
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aaron, 
:I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community. 
:One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 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
--[[User:Dear Alice|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 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
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

:At the end of your final paragraph, you say that removing entire discussions is a highly effective approach to content control. Would you mind elaborating on this? What standard of effectiveness are you using? Is something that merely keeps the community silent effective, or something that keeps it happy? What makes banning members sometimes less effective in comparison?
:[[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Natalia
*Prospectus title: “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, RIGHTS TO INFORMATION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON INTERNET: CONFLICTING RIGHTS?”
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Natalia_Assignment2.docx

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley Sweeney comments: Hi Natalia, I agree with Daniel that your paper can use more focus. The topic of intellectual property is exceptionally broad and can encompass an enormous number of cases, law, international interpretation, etc. It might be helpful to narrow down on one or two case studies that particularly peak your interest that you feel make a major statement for the future of IP and confirm your hypotheses. Perhaps you can also focus on one of your three questions, as there are many discussion points buried within each, within the context of one particular country. Intellectual property is interesting to explore, particularly as the changing nature of social sharing is entirely shifting the concept. If you can hone in on one refined idea, I think you can find yourself developing some fascinating ideas and predictions.
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: This is certainly an interesting topic and you definitely have plenty to work with. I see the others mentioned that you might need more focus but I assume you've already intended to do once your project unfolds and begins to take shape. I too have a broad topic (censorship) but I am limiting its use to one particular website. Good luck with your work and I would be interested in reading the final paper.[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*

:Aly Barbour comments: I'm afraid I must ring in with the crowd on this. I'm very curious as to how you will decide to go about observing this question in terms of a specific community. What can be learned about intellectual property rights and infromation from observing a group which disseminates information? One example, and i wish it were still active, is Oink a music sharing community geared towards spreading rare and hard to find eps. With such a sight it'd be interesting to view how the owners of the material, small bands, microlabels handle the spread of information. In the music scene the rapid ability to share music illegally has meant that a lot of bands get heard by a magnitude larger an audience. Or perhaps observing a site where people share photos and see what lengths people go to in order to maintain their ownership over an image ( watermarks etc.. who owns memes, do the owners of angry cat own the rights to the angry cat meme?) etc etc. can't wait to see what you do! All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 14:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Matthew: Working together sounds like a great idea. Shoot me an email and let's talk about it - mclain@fas dot harvard dot edu

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:''Reposted following deletion/edit conflict'' [[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:31, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:Tessa, 
:This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. 
:Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Tessa,
:This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. I see that you have a perfect strategy for your paper, which I think will definitely help you generate a great paper. How many groups will you audit? How often will you review a group? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
:[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Tessa May:

I suspect LinkedIn will be a good platform from which to derive your observations as it is obviously intended to be for professional/career/business purposes and therefore just about everyone with an account will ultimately be driven by the motivation to enhance their career goals. While I haven't observed too much conflict on LinkedIn (as opposed to say, Facebook, for example where disagreements can be sharp and common) I suppose egos can quickly flare up and agendas can easily clash as individuals attempt to push their company, career and professional point of view on to others.

I noticed that you are using the deletion of a post as the metric for censorship. You may also want to consider a slightly less rigid although probably no less effective metric for censorship - bullying and pig-piling. I've noticed, based on my personal use of social networks, that there is a tendency for a community to post overly large quantities of aggressive and oppositional rhetoric in response to something they disagree with, even if similar (and seemingly redundant in message) responses have already been posted. In other words, there is more than one way to censor and you may want to consider people applying the herd mentality to discussions when adding little to no additional minimal value as another form of censorship to your list of observable behavior. Granted it may be difficult to define and therefore measure this behavior, but it may prove valuable just the same.
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 09:09, 5 March 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
[[User:APhan|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 [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|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. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 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
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk 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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 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. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
:[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Zak:

You have a strong, well thought-out structure to your research. I don't know if it will help, but the US government hosts the Combined Federal Campaign (http://www.opm.gov/combined-federal-campaign/) which tracks and publishes the efficiency of the charities it sponsors. Another suggestion: You may want to consider looking at http://www.kickstarter.com/ as another possible target of evaluation. Among many other things, they helped launch Diaspora, a social networking alternative to Facebook and MySpace, which is still going strong.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

:Matt: Absolutely! Let's get in touch - mclain@fas dot harvard dot edu

RobMcLain: Fantastic topic. I've personally experienced some of yelp's connivery. When I was running a popular downtown restaurant in Texas we held the top Yelp ranking until we decided not to pay for advertising on Yelp. After that decision our 5-star ratings began to disappear into thin air. I am curious how you plan to track and observe so many actions on such a large site where moderation isn't necessarily noted. I'd be very interested to see how you narrow your research. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 03:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|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.[[User:JW|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? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 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. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

:Johnathan Merkwan: Johnathan, it seems like you have a lot of ideas and are attempting to address several broad areas, including international, sociological, and architectural perspectives through field world. Reading this prospectus, I was confused at a few points, such as "According to each face as an old friend, I have been studying the relativity of facial recognition.. " This sounds interesting, but I'm not entirely certain what it means. Does this mean you are comparing the new friends you are adding to the old friends you deleted? You say, "Now Facebook has deemed my friendships “real,”" but do not specify how Facebook has promoted this realness. I think something valuable in your prospectus so far is your investigation of "the spellcheck, autocorrect, and various prompted questions Facebook has alerted me to, and in doing so shall see how each action makes a difference, contextually." I think you should continue with this line of questioning, investing how facebook's suggestions influence our behavior on the site. Here is a tool to analyze your personal facebook behavior: http://www.wolframalpha.com/facebook/ and another useful facebook statistic link http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6128/The-Ultimate-List-100-Facebook-Statistics-Infographics.aspx .
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

::Thank you, Jax, for your comment. I will try to elucidate some of these issues that are inherent in my document. I admit it may be difficult for people to accurately spell my name. That addressed, how about a brief understanding of my perspective. With the War on Terror as it were, why is it necessary to altercate between various nations of power the mere definition of a word? Susan Goldstein, or Einstein, are not tangentially related; wherefore, the understanding of this situation is supposed to be confusing. I do dearly appreciate your response, yet it was and is not directed at me; much less johnathan Merkwan, or alan Ginsberg. If this has made things worse, I can only say things in person, not via computer. Thus, your links are a fabulous addition to my ideas, as intentionally, crude and misleading as they might be... (I call this, "intrigue". So, as this idea develops, I will keep you updated with pop culture as I see it, in the light of the Lacanian disposition this proposal defined cohesively, yet, clearly has accepted your suggestions sic collaboration.[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 22:24, 4 March 2013 (EST)

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 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
([[User:Free speech|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.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Free Speech: I'm looking at your prospectus, and the target community. You say 'the community operating in the business of discount travels'. I'm wondering if you have considered focusing on the consumer or the provider or the columnist/blogger portion of this community. I ask because I'm guessing the constraints: legal; market; and norm would probably be different, and the site owners could (although from a quick search, I can't see that they do) also use the site architecture to limit how each of these three groups participate on the site. There is, of course, a fourth group to consider, advertisers (a subset of providers, I'm assuming), and how the advertisers' perspective might limit what the site owners are willing to allow on the site. Finally, do the authors of the featured blogs comment in the forums? Are their comments given special weight? Do travel services providers show up in the forums in their professional capacity? Do they do so in an informational or customer service role? Great topic. I'm looking forward to your results. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:34, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "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?[[User:JW|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. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

:The argument about it contributing to social stratification was quite familiar for me; it seems to be used against many new technologies and developments.

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 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
[[User:Susan Goldstein|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)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
: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? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 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 Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
: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![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*
: Hi Raven, interesting topic you have there! I agree with Asmith that it's important that you define "quality of comments." Relatedly, I think you should consider the demographics that frequent The NYTimes, The Economist, and Boing Boing - the type of demographics will affect the type of comments as well. Also to consider is that both The New York Times and The Economist require digital subscription after a limited number of free articles, so that again too may affect what kind of people are reading those two. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 09:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 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
--[[User:Maria|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, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|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. [[User:Mattyh|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.[[User:Zak Paster|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
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|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. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

:Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi John,
Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 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
[[User:Julian|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|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.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

: Hi Aly, this is a very interesting topic! I was not aware of the Pro-Ana movement at all - When I saw the title I thought Ana was a person. Because of country laws and the way companies like Facebook have been clamping down on these communities, will you be able to directly observe any specific communities? Are they operating overtly? I browse Lookbook.nu now and then and once came upon the criticism that only super skinnies gather there (if you google it, there are communities against Lookbook because of this). Perhaps this might be helpful. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 09:30, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 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? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

:Also, have you decided which of Lessig’s four constraints you’ll be using? Are you sure you’ll only be using one? It seems that there are critical points to be made from more angles, and could probably be done without extending scope to beyond what is manageable with the time and length constraints. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 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
[[User:Jax|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 method, 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. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 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 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|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?[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 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. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

*Question: What effect does reading online health information have on the health of our society?

Many people search for online health information on a daily basis, but most of this information is not reviewed by physicians. As a result, many people self-diagnose and as a result this can result in very dangerous health outcomes. I am interested in studying websites such as WebMD and seeing what type of impact this has on people’s health.

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.
*
:Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Laurence – Your subject is interesting. Is there a data source containing the information that you are interested in? How would it be known if someone looked up a disease on WebMD, then went to Amazon and purchased a supplement that might be suggested for treating it? Google or other companies that send out tacking cookies might collected this type of information. Access to this data is an important factor for your study. Also, does your subject relate to control or censorship? If the data cannot be collected easily, the subject might need to be narrowed or focused on an area where you can collect data. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:32, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Wow, this seems very ambitious. I wouldn't even know how to go about collecting the kinds of data that would be necessary to complete such a project. Do you have a plan for where or how you can obtain this kind of information in order to analyze it? I recently took a visualization class where students had to write code in python that would go out and collect and scrub data of one's choosing from the internet. Are you planning on utilizing some strategy such as that? Good luck with your assignment. [[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T19:56:15Z

Alybarbour: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

''Please 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: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

In the [[#Submissions|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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) 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
[[User:Interestingcomments|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. --[[User:Dear Alice|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. [[User:Milenagrado|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
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
: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. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hello Asmith: This is a very interesting topic, I am intrigued to see what model you use to best compare the benefits and the limitations of introducing this new type of platform.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
ASmith:

It will be interesting to note if there are any major points of contention that arise with regards to where the community wants to take Diaspora which causes a significant number of its members to break off and take a separate version in a different direction. I'm not sure if the way its copyrighted will allow this but they could always start from scratch. Linux, for example, allows for the source code to be modified and distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes by anyone and this aspect of it has resulted in several very powerful flavors emerging (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, CentOS, etc...)

I think it will also be interesting to compare the values of the community as it exists today compared to the values to the community as it grows and changes. For example, I'd guess that the community that is taking interest in Diaspora today is largely between the ages of approximately mid teens and late 20's/early 30's. I'd also venture a guess that they are fairly tech saavy. If the community continues to grow and appeal to the general population and in three to five years from now enjoys more mainstream popularity, it's probably safe to say that different decisions about what direction to take the project will emerge.

In any case, this is a great topic choice. I'm sure it will be interesting to observe and write about.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 08:32, 5 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
[[User:Rich|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 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
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aaron, 
:I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community. 
:One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 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
--[[User:Dear Alice|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 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
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

:At the end of your final paragraph, you say that removing entire discussions is a highly effective approach to content control. Would you mind elaborating on this? What standard of effectiveness are you using? Is something that merely keeps the community silent effective, or something that keeps it happy? What makes banning members sometimes less effective in comparison?
:[[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Natalia
*Prospectus title: “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, RIGHTS TO INFORMATION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON INTERNET: CONFLICTING RIGHTS?”
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Natalia_Assignment2.docx

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley Sweeney comments: Hi Natalia, I agree with Daniel that your paper can use more focus. The topic of intellectual property is exceptionally broad and can encompass an enormous number of cases, law, international interpretation, etc. It might be helpful to narrow down on one or two case studies that particularly peak your interest that you feel make a major statement for the future of IP and confirm your hypotheses. Perhaps you can also focus on one of your three questions, as there are many discussion points buried within each, within the context of one particular country. Intellectual property is interesting to explore, particularly as the changing nature of social sharing is entirely shifting the concept. If you can hone in on one refined idea, I think you can find yourself developing some fascinating ideas and predictions.
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: This is certainly an interesting topic and you definitely have plenty to work with. I see the others mentioned that you might need more focus but I assume you've already intended to do once your project unfolds and begins to take shape. I too have a broad topic (censorship) but I am limiting its use to one particular website. Good luck with your work and I would be interested in reading the final paper.[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*

:Aly Barbour comments: I'm afraid I must ring in with the crowd on this. I'm very curious as to how you will decide to go about observing this question in terms of a specific community. What can be learned about intellectual property rights and infromation from observing a group which disseminates information? One example, and i wish it were still active, is Oink a music sharing community geared towards spreading rare and hard to find eps. With such a sight it'd be interesting to view how the owners of the material, small bands, microlabels handle the spread of information. In the music scene the rapid ability to share music illegally has meant that a lot of bands get heard by a magnitude larger an audience. Or perhaps observing a site where people share photos and see what lengths people go to in order to maintain their ownership over an image ( watermarks etc.. who owns memes, do the owners of angry cat own the rights to the angry cat meme?) etc etc. can't wait to see what you do! All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 14:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Matthew: Working together sounds like a great idea. Shoot me an email and let's talk about it - mclain@fas dot harvard dot edu

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:''Reposted following deletion/edit conflict'' [[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:31, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:Tessa, 
:This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. 
:Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Tessa,
:This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. I see that you have a perfect strategy for your paper, which I think will definitely help you generate a great paper. How many groups will you audit? How often will you review a group? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
:[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Tessa May:

I suspect LinkedIn will be a good platform from which to derive your observations as it is obviously intended to be for professional/career/business purposes and therefore just about everyone with an account will ultimately be driven by the motivation to enhance their career goals. While I haven't observed too much conflict on LinkedIn (as opposed to say, Facebook, for example where disagreements can be sharp and common) I suppose egos can quickly flare up and agendas can easily clash as individuals attempt to push their company, career and professional point of view on to others.

I noticed that you are using the deletion of a post as the metric for censorship. You may also want to consider a slightly less rigid although probably no less effective metric for censorship - bullying and pig-piling. I've noticed, based on my personal use of social networks, that there is a tendency for a community to post overly large quantities of aggressive and oppositional rhetoric in response to something they disagree with, even if similar (and seemingly redundant in message) responses have already been posted. In other words, there is more than one way to censor and you may want to consider people applying the herd mentality to discussions when adding little to no additional minimal value as another form of censorship to your list of observable behavior. Granted it may be difficult to define and therefore measure this behavior, but it may prove valuable just the same.
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 09:09, 5 March 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
[[User:APhan|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 [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|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. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 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
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk 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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 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. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
:[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Zak:

You have a strong, well thought-out structure to your research. I don't know if it will help, but the US government hosts the Combined Federal Campaign (http://www.opm.gov/combined-federal-campaign/) which tracks and publishes the efficiency of the charities it sponsors. Another suggestion: You may want to consider looking at http://www.kickstarter.com/ as another possible target of evaluation. Among many other things, they helped launch Diaspora, a social networking alternative to Facebook and MySpace, which is still going strong.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

:Matt: Absolutely! Let's get in touch - mclain@fas dot harvard dot edu

RobMcLain: Fantastic topic. I've personally experienced some of yelp's connivery. When I was running a popular downtown restaurant in Texas we held the top Yelp ranking until we decided not to pay for advertising on Yelp. After that decision our 5-star ratings began to disappear into thin air. I am curious how you plan to track and observe so many actions on such a large site where moderation isn't necessarily noted. I'd be very interested to see how you narrow your research. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 03:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|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.[[User:JW|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? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 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. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

:Johnathan Merkwan: Johnathan, it seems like you have a lot of ideas and are attempting to address several broad areas, including international, sociological, and architectural perspectives through field world. Reading this prospectus, I was confused at a few points, such as "According to each face as an old friend, I have been studying the relativity of facial recognition.. " This sounds interesting, but I'm not entirely certain what it means. Does this mean you are comparing the new friends you are adding to the old friends you deleted? You say, "Now Facebook has deemed my friendships “real,”" but do not specify how Facebook has promoted this realness. I think something valuable in your prospectus so far is your investigation of "the spellcheck, autocorrect, and various prompted questions Facebook has alerted me to, and in doing so shall see how each action makes a difference, contextually." I think you should continue with this line of questioning, investing how facebook's suggestions influence our behavior on the site. Here is a tool to analyze your personal facebook behavior: http://www.wolframalpha.com/facebook/ and another useful facebook statistic link http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6128/The-Ultimate-List-100-Facebook-Statistics-Infographics.aspx .
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

::Thank you, Jax, for your comment. I will try to elucidate some of these issues that are inherent in my document. I admit it may be difficult for people to accurately spell my name. That addressed, how about a brief understanding of my perspective. With the War on Terror as it were, why is it necessary to altercate between various nations of power the mere definition of a word? Susan Goldstein, or Einstein, are not tangentially related; wherefore, the understanding of this situation is supposed to be confusing. I do dearly appreciate your response, yet it was and is not directed at me; much less johnathan Merkwan, or alan Ginsberg. If this has made things worse, I can only say things in person, not via computer. Thus, your links are a fabulous addition to my ideas, as intentionally, crude and misleading as they might be... (I call this, "intrigue". So, as this idea develops, I will keep you updated with pop culture as I see it, in the light of the Lacanian disposition this proposal defined cohesively, yet, clearly has accepted your suggestions sic collaboration.[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 22:24, 4 March 2013 (EST)

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 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
([[User:Free speech|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.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Free Speech: I'm looking at your prospectus, and the target community. You say 'the community operating in the business of discount travels'. I'm wondering if you have considered focusing on the consumer or the provider or the columnist/blogger portion of this community. I ask because I'm guessing the constraints: legal; market; and norm would probably be different, and the site owners could (although from a quick search, I can't see that they do) also use the site architecture to limit how each of these three groups participate on the site. There is, of course, a fourth group to consider, advertisers (a subset of providers, I'm assuming), and how the advertisers' perspective might limit what the site owners are willing to allow on the site. Finally, do the authors of the featured blogs comment in the forums? Are their comments given special weight? Do travel services providers show up in the forums in their professional capacity? Do they do so in an informational or customer service role? Great topic. I'm looking forward to your results. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:34, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "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?[[User:JW|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. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

:The argument about it contributing to social stratification was quite familiar for me; it seems to be used against many new technologies and developments.

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 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
[[User:Susan Goldstein|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)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
: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? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 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 Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
: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![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*
: Hi Raven, interesting topic you have there! I agree with Asmith that it's important that you define "quality of comments." Relatedly, I think you should consider the demographics that frequent The NYTimes, The Economist, and Boing Boing - the type of demographics will affect the type of comments as well. Also to consider is that both The New York Times and The Economist require digital subscription after a limited number of free articles, so that again too may affect what kind of people are reading those two. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 09:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 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
--[[User:Maria|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, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|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. [[User:Mattyh|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.[[User:Zak Paster|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
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|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. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

:Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi John,
Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 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
[[User:Julian|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|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.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

: Hi Aly, this is a very interesting topic! I was not aware of the Pro-Ana movement at all - When I saw the title I thought Ana was a person. Because of country laws and the way companies like Facebook have been clamping down on these communities, will you be able to directly observe any specific communities? Are they operating overtly? I browse Lookbook.nu now and then and once came upon the criticism that only super skinnies gather there (if you google it, there are communities against Lookbook because of this). Perhaps this might be helpful. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 09:30, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 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? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

:Also, have you decided which of Lessig’s four constraints you’ll be using? Are you sure you’ll only be using one? It seems that there are critical points to be made from more angles, and could probably be done without extending scope to beyond what is manageable with the time and length constraints. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 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
[[User:Jax|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 method, 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. [[User:Zak Paster|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 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|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?[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 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. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

*Question: What effect does reading online health information have on the health of our society?

Many people search for online health information on a daily basis, but most of this information is not reviewed by physicians. As a result, many people self-diagnose and as a result this can result in very dangerous health outcomes. I am interested in studying websites such as WebMD and seeing what type of impact this has on people’s health.

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.
*
:Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Laurence – Your subject is interesting. Is there a data source containing the information that you are interested in? How would it be known if someone looked up a disease on WebMD, then went to Amazon and purchased a supplement that might be suggested for treating it? Google or other companies that send out tacking cookies might collected this type of information. Access to this data is an important factor for your study. Also, does your subject relate to control or censorship? If the data cannot be collected easily, the subject might need to be narrowed or focused on an area where you can collect data. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:32, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Wow, this seems very ambitious. I wouldn't even know how to go about collecting the kinds of data that would be necessary to complete such a project. Do you have a plan for where or how you can obtain this kind of information in order to analyze it? I recently took a visualization class where students had to write code in python that would go out and collect and scrub data of one's choosing from the internet. Are you planning on utilizing some strategy such as that? Good luck with your assignment. [[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T09:46:10Z

Alybarbour: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

''Please 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: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

In the [[#Submissions|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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) 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
[[User:Interestingcomments|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. --[[User:Dear Alice|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. [[User:Milenagrado|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
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
: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. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 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
[[User:Rich|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

******

*Pseudonym: AaronEttl
*Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aaron, 
:I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community. 
:One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

******

*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
--[[User:Dear Alice|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 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
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

:At the end of your final paragraph, you say that removing entire discussions is a highly effective approach to content control. Would you mind elaborating on this? What standard of effectiveness are you using? Is something that merely keeps the community silent effective, or something that keeps it happy? What makes banning members sometimes less effective in comparison?
:[[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Natalia
*Prospectus title: “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, RIGHTS TO INFORMATION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON INTERNET: CONFLICTING RIGHTS?”
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Natalia_Assignment2.docx

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley Sweeney comments: Hi Natalia, I agree with Daniel that your paper can use more focus. The topic of intellectual property is exceptionally broad and can encompass an enormous number of cases, law, international interpretation, etc. It might be helpful to narrow down on one or two case studies that particularly peak your interest that you feel make a major statement for the future of IP and confirm your hypotheses. Perhaps you can also focus on one of your three questions, as there are many discussion points buried within each, within the context of one particular country. Intellectual property is interesting to explore, particularly as the changing nature of social sharing is entirely shifting the concept. If you can hone in on one refined idea, I think you can find yourself developing some fascinating ideas and predictions.
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:''Reposted following deletion/edit conflict'' [[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:31, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:Tessa, 
:This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. 
:Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Tessa,
:This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. I see that you have a perfect strategy for your paper, which I think will definitely help you generate a great paper. How many groups will you audit? How often will you review a group? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
:[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 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
[[User:APhan|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 [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|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. [[User:Mattyh|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
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk 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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 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. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
:[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

RobMcLain: Fantastic topic. I've personally experienced some of yelp's connivery. When I was running a popular downtown restaurant in Texas we held the top Yelp ranking until we decided not to pay for advertising on Yelp. After that decision our 5-star ratings began to disappear into thin air. I am curious how you plan to track and observe so many actions on such a large site where moderation isn't necessarily noted. I'd be very interested to see how you narrow your research. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 03:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|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.[[User:JW|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? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 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. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

:Johnathan Merkwan: Johnathan, it seems like you have a lot of ideas and are attempting to address several broad areas, including international, sociological, and architectural perspectives through field world. Reading this prospectus, I was confused at a few points, such as "According to each face as an old friend, I have been studying the relativity of facial recognition.. " This sounds interesting, but I'm not entirely certain what it means. Does this mean you are comparing the new friends you are adding to the old friends you deleted? You say, "Now Facebook has deemed my friendships “real,”" but do not specify how Facebook has promoted this realness. I think something valuable in your prospectus so far is your investigation of "the spellcheck, autocorrect, and various prompted questions Facebook has alerted me to, and in doing so shall see how each action makes a difference, contextually." I think you should continue with this line of questioning, investing how facebook's suggestions influence our behavior on the site. Here is a tool to analyze your personal facebook behavior: http://www.wolframalpha.com/facebook/ and another useful facebook statistic link http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6128/The-Ultimate-List-100-Facebook-Statistics-Infographics.aspx .
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

::Thank you, Jax, for your comment. I will try to elucidate some of these issues that are inherent in my document. I admit it may be difficult for people to accurately spell my name. That addressed, how about a brief understanding of my perspective. With the War on Terror as it were, why is it necessary to altercate between various nations of power the mere definition of a word? Susan Goldstein, or Einstein, are not tangentially related; wherefore, the understanding of this situation is supposed to be confusing. I do dearly appreciate your response, yet it was and is not directed at me; much less johnathan Merkwan, or alan Ginsberg. If this has made things worse, I can only say things in person, not via computer. Thus, your links are a fabulous addition to my ideas, as intentionally, crude and misleading as they might be... (I call this, "intrigue". So, as this idea develops, I will keep you updated with pop culture as I see it, in the light of the Lacanian disposition this proposal defined cohesively, yet, clearly has accepted your suggestions sic collaboration.[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 22:24, 4 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
([[User:Free speech|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.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "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?[[User:JW|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. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

:The argument about it contributing to social stratification was quite familiar for me; it seems to be used against many new technologies and developments.

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 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
[[User:Susan Goldstein|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)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
: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? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 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 Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
: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![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 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
--[[User:Maria|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, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|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. [[User:Mattyh|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.[[User:Zak Paster|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
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|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. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

:Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi John,
Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 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
[[User:Julian|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|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.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 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? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

:Also, have you decided which of Lessig’s four constraints you’ll be using? Are you sure you’ll only be using one? It seems that there are critical points to be made from more angles, and could probably be done without extending scope to beyond what is manageable with the time and length constraints. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 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
[[User:Jax|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 method, 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. [[User:Zak Paster|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 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|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?[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 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. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

*Question: What effect does reading online health information have on the health of our society?

Many people search for online health information on a daily basis, but most of this information is not reviewed by physicians. As a result, many people self-diagnose and as a result this can result in very dangerous health outcomes. I am interested in studying websites such as WebMD and seeing what type of impact this has on people’s health.

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.
*
:Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Laurence – Your subject is interesting. Is there a data source containing the information that you are interested in? How would it be known if someone looked up a disease on WebMD, then went to Amazon and purchased a supplement that might be suggested for treating it? Google or other companies that send out tacking cookies might collected this type of information. Access to this data is an important factor for your study. Also, does your subject relate to control or censorship? If the data cannot be collected easily, the subject might need to be narrowed or focused on an area where you can collect data. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:32, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T09:36:11Z

Alybarbour: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

''Please 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: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

In the [[#Submissions|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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) 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
[[User:Interestingcomments|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. --[[User:Dear Alice|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. [[User:Milenagrado|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
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
: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. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 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
[[User:Rich|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

******

*Pseudonym: AaronEttl
*Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aaron, 
:I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community. 
:One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

******

*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
--[[User:Dear Alice|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 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
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

:At the end of your final paragraph, you say that removing entire discussions is a highly effective approach to content control. Would you mind elaborating on this? What standard of effectiveness are you using? Is something that merely keeps the community silent effective, or something that keeps it happy? What makes banning members sometimes less effective in comparison?
:[[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Natalia
*Prospectus title: “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, RIGHTS TO INFORMATION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON INTERNET: CONFLICTING RIGHTS?”
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Natalia_Assignment2.docx

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley Sweeney comments: Hi Natalia, I agree with Daniel that your paper can use more focus. The topic of intellectual property is exceptionally broad and can encompass an enormous number of cases, law, international interpretation, etc. It might be helpful to narrow down on one or two case studies that particularly peak your interest that you feel make a major statement for the future of IP and confirm your hypotheses. Perhaps you can also focus on one of your three questions, as there are many discussion points buried within each, within the context of one particular country. Intellectual property is interesting to explore, particularly as the changing nature of social sharing is entirely shifting the concept. If you can hone in on one refined idea, I think you can find yourself developing some fascinating ideas and predictions.
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:''Reposted following deletion/edit conflict'' [[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:31, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:Tessa, 
:This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. 
:Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Tessa,
:This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. I see that you have a perfect strategy for your paper, which I think will definitely help you generate a great paper. How many groups will you audit? How often will you review a group? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
:[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 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
[[User:APhan|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 [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|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. [[User:Mattyh|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
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk 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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 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. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
:[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

RobMcLain: Fantastic topic. I've personally experienced some of yelp's connivery. When I was running a popular downtown restaurant in Texas we held the top Yelp ranking until we decided not to pay for advertising on Yelp. After that decision our 5-star ratings began to disappear into thin air. I am curious how you plan to track and observe so many actions on such a large site where moderation isn't necessarily noted. I'd be very interested to see how you narrow your research. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 03:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|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.[[User:JW|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? [[User:Asmith|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. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

:Johnathan Merkwan: Johnathan, it seems like you have a lot of ideas and are attempting to address several broad areas, including international, sociological, and architectural perspectives through field world. Reading this prospectus, I was confused at a few points, such as "According to each face as an old friend, I have been studying the relativity of facial recognition.. " This sounds interesting, but I'm not entirely certain what it means. Does this mean you are comparing the new friends you are adding to the old friends you deleted? You say, "Now Facebook has deemed my friendships “real,”" but do not specify how Facebook has promoted this realness. I think something valuable in your prospectus so far is your investigation of "the spellcheck, autocorrect, and various prompted questions Facebook has alerted me to, and in doing so shall see how each action makes a difference, contextually." I think you should continue with this line of questioning, investing how facebook's suggestions influence our behavior on the site. Here is a tool to analyze your personal facebook behavior: http://www.wolframalpha.com/facebook/ and another useful facebook statistic link http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6128/The-Ultimate-List-100-Facebook-Statistics-Infographics.aspx .
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

::Thank you, Jax, for your comment. I will try to elucidate some of these issues that are inherent in my document. I admit it may be difficult for people to accurately spell my name. That addressed, how about a brief understanding of my perspective. With the War on Terror as it were, why is it necessary to altercate between various nations of power the mere definition of a word? Susan Goldstein, or Einstein, are not tangentially related; wherefore, the understanding of this situation is supposed to be confusing. I do dearly appreciate your response, yet it was and is not directed at me; much less johnathan Merkwan, or alan Ginsberg. If this has made things worse, I can only say things in person, not via computer. Thus, your links are a fabulous addition to my ideas, as intentionally, crude and misleading as they might be... (I call this, "intrigue". So, as this idea develops, I will keep you updated with pop culture as I see it, in the light of the Lacanian disposition this proposal defined cohesively, yet, clearly has accepted your suggestions sic collaboration.[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 22:24, 4 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
([[User:Free speech|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.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "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?[[User:JW|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. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

:The argument about it contributing to social stratification was quite familiar for me; it seems to be used against many new technologies and developments.

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 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
[[User:Susan Goldstein|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)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
: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? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 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 Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
: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![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 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
--[[User:Maria|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, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|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. [[User:Mattyh|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.[[User:Zak Paster|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
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|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. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

:Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi John,
Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 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
[[User:Julian|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|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.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 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? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

:Also, have you decided which of Lessig’s four constraints you’ll be using? Are you sure you’ll only be using one? It seems that there are critical points to be made from more angles, and could probably be done without extending scope to beyond what is manageable with the time and length constraints. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 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
[[User:Jax|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 method, 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. [[User:Zak Paster|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 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|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?[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 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. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

*Question: What effect does reading online health information have on the health of our society?

Many people search for online health information on a daily basis, but most of this information is not reviewed by physicians. As a result, many people self-diagnose and as a result this can result in very dangerous health outcomes. I am interested in studying websites such as WebMD and seeing what type of impact this has on people’s health.

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.
*
:Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Laurence – Your subject is interesting. Is there a data source containing the information that you are interested in? How would it be known if someone looked up a disease on WebMD, then went to Amazon and purchased a supplement that might be suggested for treating it? Google or other companies that send out tacking cookies might collected this type of information. Access to this data is an important factor for your study. Also, does your subject relate to control or censorship? If the data cannot be collected easily, the subject might need to be narrowed or focused on an area where you can collect data. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:32, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T08:58:23Z

Alybarbour: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

''Please 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: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]. If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

In the [[#Submissions|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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) 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
[[User:Interestingcomments|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. --[[User:Dear Alice|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. [[User:Milenagrado|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
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
: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. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 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
[[User:Rich|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

******

*Pseudonym: AaronEttl
*Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aaron, 
:I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community. 
:One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

******

*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
--[[User:Dear Alice|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 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
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

:At the end of your final paragraph, you say that removing entire discussions is a highly effective approach to content control. Would you mind elaborating on this? What standard of effectiveness are you using? Is something that merely keeps the community silent effective, or something that keeps it happy? What makes banning members sometimes less effective in comparison?
:[[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Natalia
*Prospectus title: “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, RIGHTS TO INFORMATION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON INTERNET: CONFLICTING RIGHTS?”
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Natalia_Assignment2.docx

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley Sweeney comments: Hi Natalia, I agree with Daniel that your paper can use more focus. The topic of intellectual property is exceptionally broad and can encompass an enormous number of cases, law, international interpretation, etc. It might be helpful to narrow down on one or two case studies that particularly peak your interest that you feel make a major statement for the future of IP and confirm your hypotheses. Perhaps you can also focus on one of your three questions, as there are many discussion points buried within each, within the context of one particular country. Intellectual property is interesting to explore, particularly as the changing nature of social sharing is entirely shifting the concept. If you can hone in on one refined idea, I think you can find yourself developing some fascinating ideas and predictions.
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|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. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|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?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:''Reposted following deletion/edit conflict'' [[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:31, 27 February 2013 (EST)

:Tessa, 
:This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. 
:Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status. 
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Tessa,
:This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. I see that you have a perfect strategy for your paper, which I think will definitely help you generate a great paper. How many groups will you audit? How often will you review a group? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
:[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 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
[[User:APhan|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 [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|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. [[User:Mattyh|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
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk 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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 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. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
:[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 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?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

RobMcLain: Fantastic topic. I've personally experienced some of yelp's connivery. When I was running a popular downtown restaurant in Texas we held the top Yelp ranking until we decided not to pay for advertising on Yelp. After that decision our 5-star ratings began to disappear into thin air. I am curious how you plan to track and observe so many actions on such a large site where moderation isn't necessarily noted. I'd be very interested to see how you narrow your research. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 03:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|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.[[User:JW|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? [[User:Asmith|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. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

:Johnathan Merkwan: Johnathan, it seems like you have a lot of ideas and are attempting to address several broad areas, including international, sociological, and architectural perspectives through field world. Reading this prospectus, I was confused at a few points, such as "According to each face as an old friend, I have been studying the relativity of facial recognition.. " This sounds interesting, but I'm not entirely certain what it means. Does this mean you are comparing the new friends you are adding to the old friends you deleted? You say, "Now Facebook has deemed my friendships “real,”" but do not specify how Facebook has promoted this realness. I think something valuable in your prospectus so far is your investigation of "the spellcheck, autocorrect, and various prompted questions Facebook has alerted me to, and in doing so shall see how each action makes a difference, contextually." I think you should continue with this line of questioning, investing how facebook's suggestions influence our behavior on the site. Here is a tool to analyze your personal facebook behavior: http://www.wolframalpha.com/facebook/ and another useful facebook statistic link http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6128/The-Ultimate-List-100-Facebook-Statistics-Infographics.aspx .
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

::Thank you, Jax, for your comment. I will try to elucidate some of these issues that are inherent in my document. I admit it may be difficult for people to accurately spell my name. That addressed, how about a brief understanding of my perspective. With the War on Terror as it were, why is it necessary to altercate between various nations of power the mere definition of a word? Susan Goldstein, or Einstein, are not tangentially related; wherefore, the understanding of this situation is supposed to be confusing. I do dearly appreciate your response, yet it was and is not directed at me; much less johnathan Merkwan, or alan Ginsberg. If this has made things worse, I can only say things in person, not via computer. Thus, your links are a fabulous addition to my ideas, as intentionally, crude and misleading as they might be... (I call this, "intrigue". So, as this idea develops, I will keep you updated with pop culture as I see it, in the light of the Lacanian disposition this proposal defined cohesively, yet, clearly has accepted your suggestions sic collaboration.[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 22:24, 4 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
([[User:Free speech|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.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "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?[[User:JW|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. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

:The argument about it contributing to social stratification was quite familiar for me; it seems to be used against many new technologies and developments.

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 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
[[User:Susan Goldstein|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)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
: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? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 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 Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
: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![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|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. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 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
--[[User:Maria|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, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|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. [[User:Mattyh|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.[[User:Zak Paster|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
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|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. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

:Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi John,
Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 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
[[User:Julian|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.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|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.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 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? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

:Also, have you decided which of Lessig’s four constraints you’ll be using? Are you sure you’ll only be using one? It seems that there are critical points to be made from more angles, and could probably be done without extending scope to beyond what is manageable with the time and length constraints. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 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
[[User:Jax|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 method, 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. [[User:Zak Paster|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 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|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?[[User:JW|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? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 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. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

*Question: What effect does reading online health information have on the health of our society?

Many people search for online health information on a daily basis, but most of this information is not reviewed by physicians. As a result, many people self-diagnose and as a result this can result in very dangerous health outcomes. I am interested in studying websites such as WebMD and seeing what type of impact this has on people’s health.

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.
*
:Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Laurence – Your subject is interesting. Is there a data source containing the information that you are interested in? How would it be known if someone looked up a disease on WebMD, then went to Amazon and purchased a supplement that might be suggested for treating it? Google or other companies that send out tacking cookies might collected this type of information. Access to this data is an important factor for your study. Also, does your subject relate to control or censorship? If the data cannot be collected easily, the subject might need to be narrowed or focused on an area where you can collect data. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:32, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-02-26T22:17:39Z

Alybarbour: /* Comments */

Assignment 1 Submissions

2013-02-14T05:05:56Z

Alybarbour: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
Please make sure the name of your file includes your name or pseudonym (example: Name_Assignment1.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (final deadline: Tuesday, February 12, 5:30pm ET).

Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]. After you upload your file, please post a link to it in the "Submissions" section below in the following format:

* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

Alternatively, for this assignment, you can e-mail your file to the instructors at is2013+homework@cyber.law.harvard.edu. We are offering this option for Assignment 1 only, as a backup as you become familiar with uploading; future assignments will need to be uploaded per the procedure above.

Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]

===Submissions===
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:

* (Name or Pseudonym)

* (Link to rule)

* (Link to article)

* (Link to your submitted report)

[[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 09:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)
******

Mattyh (Matthew Haney)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Third_Reich

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matt_Haney_-_Assignment_1%2C_02102013.docx

***

Admits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment1.doc

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 11 February 2013 (EST)

*****

Dear Alice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_1_(Dear_Alice).docx

--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 15:42, 11 February 2013 (EST)

'''Initials In Name:''' TAG Student ID#10789842

'''Pseudonym:''' interesting comments

'''Link to rule:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

'''Link to article:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation

'''What the rule is?'''

Neutral Point of View (NPOV), means representing fairly without bias the information that is published, which is supported by reliable sources. This deals with creating and maintaining a neutral point of view on internet. Disputes or any sort of controversial subjects, such as religious believes or abortion, aim to be described as opposed to take a biased stand on the subject. The explanation of the subject should be neutrally informative and factual and not stray towards an opinion.

'''Why this matters?'''

Neutral Point of View matters because this rule established by Wikipedia, establishes a check and balance to provide the parameters of control to protect the integrity of the platform. With these protections and controls in place it not only protects the integrity of the platform and its participants, but it also protects the rights and freedoms of the owners of the content referenced. It is vital to discover a blend of technical and economic modernization The challenge that face Neutral Point of View is the Wikipedia is written by open and transparent consensus It can take a substantial amount of time before a correct "neutral approach can be established for all parties to agree on (Poe 2006). The purpose of this will be for implementing representation fairly, proportionately and and as much as possible, unbiased for all articles published by reliable sources (Poe 2006).

'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''

Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:

'''Verifiability''" This individuals who are reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source that has been published such as books or newspaper.

'''No Original Research:''' The term is a prohibition against original research and means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed (No Original Research! 2013). This rule is the third rule in content policies and determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

'''What is the article you chose?'''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation

'''Why you chose it?'''

In 1997 the term “Disruptive Innovation” was created by a Harvard Professor Clayton M. Christensen and published a book on the topic. Throughout my professional career I have strived to bring to market paradigm shifts in technologies, some would classify as disruptive innovations. Three classic examples of disruptive innovations that sacrificed quality for the ability to have mobility are:
- The Transistor Radio
- Pocket Calculators
- Mobile Phones

'''What edits you made?'''
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.

[[File:LSTUEdit]]

'''Did users made edits in response?'''
None

'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''

Neutral Point of View did not play a significant role in this particular article, but it has the possibility of future violations. As new technology enters into the market there could be a cause for the technology being replaced to attempt to promote the inadequacies of this new technology in an attempt to keep market share. An example of this is how Rockefeller spent millions in an attempt to promote the inadequacies of electricity when it challenged his oil lanterns as the primary source of power.
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia.

In reporting or educating being neutral and unbiased is critical in forming free minds that can shape the world through their own interpretations and innovations.

'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?'''

The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.

'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''

This is important for Wikipedia so it sets the environmental parameters to establish them as a reliable informational resource, instead of a platform to promote individual’s political motives. It also encourages cooperation among encyclopedia's contributors (Poe 2006).

'''Bibliography'''

Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt

No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html

Poe, Marshall. September 2006. A Closer Look as Neutral Point of View (NPOV). http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/a-closer-look-at-the-neutral-point-of-view-npov/305120/

Robertson, Jordan. November 11, 2008. Software Aims To Uncover ‘Data Discrimination’.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22013943/ns/technology_and_science-internet/t/software-aims-uncover-data-discrimination/#.URVFKaVX3MA [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 14:34, 8 February 2013 (EST)
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)

***

User777
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth

Assignment #1 – Neutral Point of View
Class user: user777
Wiki user: user55462*
February 12th, 2013
Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control

For this first assignment, I chose to edit Wikipedia’s “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) rule. NPOV stands that users of Wikipedia that edit an article should “fairly represent all sides of a story, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct”. Therefore, the cause of Wikipedia’s social and political bias, establish a quantitative benchmark for examining the presence of that bias. NPOV mainly defines the terms of objectiveness, bias and neutrality that provide a framework for considering neutrality within the Internet arena. In my view, however, the main questions would arise are: what is meant by neutrality? Is it fairness or perhaps positive opinion? What are the definitions of fairness and/or neutral?

The article that I chose was “Wikipedia and the meaning of truth” which was published by MIT technology review. I found this article by searching different entries in wiki, and this article was linked via Wiki tools.
Here is the link to this article: http://www.technologyreview.com/review/411041/wikipedia-and-the-meaning-of-truth/page/2/, however it is mainly a support to the main article, which is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth

I chose this article because it greatly illustrated the clarifications of truth and fairness that was perfectly aliened for this assignment that supported the idea of NPOV. What is fairness? How to be fair? Moreover, what is considered to be truth? According to Wikipedia’s entry on the subject, “the term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree.” But in practice, however in “Wikipedia’s standard for inclusion has become its de facto standard for truth, and since Wikipedia is the most widely read online reference on the planet, it’s the standard of truth that most people are implicitly using when they type a search term into Google or Yahoo. On Wikipedia, truth is received as the consensus view of a subject” (article chosen). Within this rule, I edited the idea of fairness and opinion. I stated that fairness’s tone should be presented within competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization, for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. Moreover, I have added few edits about the manner of option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Furthermore, after my edits, I have placed it on “watch-list”, however I have not received any comments and/or edits. In my view, this rule is neutral in maintaining Wikipedia’s community. Due to cultural and social diversification of options and thoughts, this rule could play a neutral role within its community. Also, I read few other articles, and it’s interesting to note what Princeton’s reviews are about this rule: “NPOV is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, where there is often an abundance of viewpoints and criticisms of the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts”. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:36, 11 February 2013 (EST)

AaronEttl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment1.docx

[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 16:38, 11 February 2013 (EST)

***

Maria Paz Jurado
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
* http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobierno_abierto
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Paz_Jurado_-_Assignment_1.docx
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 17:19, 11 February 2013 (EST)

***
Milenagrado
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assigment_1.doc

***

Rebekahjudson
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonassignment1.rtf
***

Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Joshua Henderson, joshywonder
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_1_-_Joshua_Henderson_-_Joshywonder_-_Feb11.13.docx

***
HGaylor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hunter_Gaylor_Internet_Article_.docx

***

* Name: Zak Paster
* Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
* Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universities_and_higher_education_in_Brazil
* Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_1_Universities_and_Higher_Education_in_Brazil_2-12-13.docx
[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 10:02, 12 February 2013 (EST)

***

J6428

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_AI

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/A1_JULIAN_J6428.docx

[[User:Julian|Julian]] 10:53, 12 February 2013 (EST)

[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 11:02, 12 February 2013 (EST)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Seasons_Hotels_and_Resorts#History

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:G%26M.doc

Rich Cacioppo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_pool_cleaner

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assingment_1_Wikipedia_article_Feburary_12_2013.docx

GregB23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_8C_Competizione

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assingment_1_Wiki

Michael Keane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_flight_rules#Instrument_flight_rules

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Michael_Keane_Assignment_1.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 12:38, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Kaley Sweeney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Uganda
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Assignment1.docx
Kaley Sweeney 12:44, 12 February 2013 (EST)

***
Phildade (Phillip Dade)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norb_Vonnegut

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_LSTU-120_Assignment_1.doc
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:50, 12 February 2013 (EST)
***

Raven

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driven_to_Distraction_(Inspector_Morse_TV-episode)

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Assignment_1_Due_February_12_2013.docx
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:02, 12 February 2013 (EST)
******
Tessa May
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Academy_of_Information_Technology
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIT,_Academy_of_Information_Technology
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_1.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 16:32, 12 February 2013 (EST)
******

***

Johnfloyd6675

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonegap

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:IS2013FloydAssignment1.txt

[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:37, 12 February 2013 (EST)
***

Susan Goldstein
Rule: Ownership of Articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
Article: Synchronous learning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_learning
Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Goldstein_Assgn_1_Wikipedia.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 16:56, 12 February 2013 (EST)

****

CyberRalph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ababi

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Martins_Assignment1.docx

****
Muromi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiragana

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_Assignment_1.doc

****

****

AliciaPhan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Charms

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AliciaPhan_Assignment1.docx
--[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:20, 12 February 2013 (EST)

****

JW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_yogurt
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment1.pdf[[User:JW|JW]] 17:29, 12 February 2013 (EST)

****

Jax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggalo

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Wikipediafinal.docx

*****

Rmcharv [RobMcLain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Charms

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:RobMcLain_-_Assignment_1.docx

*****

Baughller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoArmy

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Baughller_Assignment_1.docx

******************

1303E7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitter_bombing
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Wikireview.docx

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-01-29T22:04:31Z

Alybarbour: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 29'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But from its humble beginnings the Internet has always felt like more than this. The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 6 minutes, watch all)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmMNRHktX8 Jonathan Zittrain, How the Internet Works] (approx. 4 mins., watch all)

* [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders (Legal Affairs)]

* [http://www.webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-DigitalDivideWhatToDo2007.pdf Eszter Hargittai, The Digital Divide and What to Do About It (New Economy Handbook)] (focus on Sections I-III)

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences/Overview/Digital-differences.aspx Pew Internet & American Life Project, Digital Differences 2012] (read intro, skim the sections).

* [http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html Rebecca MacKinnon, Let’s Take Back the Internet! (TED.com)] (approx. 15 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto)

* [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/03/the_third_wave.htm Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! [[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 10:00, 28 January 2013 (EST)

'''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>

******

1. There has been several significant economic changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to information has impacted the way news is distributed, causing the world investment markets to move faster and become more volatile off of news.

New Opportunity: A greater understanding of how the internet works with distribution can allow for algorithms to be developed through digital technologies to counter act the news as its distributed.

New Challenge: With greater technology being created at the speed of light, it has become difficult to study trends for the investment markets, which are in some respects locked into a web based portal that can control the fate of public companies, instead of fundamentals.

2. There has been several significant political changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to information online about freedoms in the democracies around the world

New Opportunity: In the Middle East this was a major contributing factor in the Arab Spring, to bring and implement change.

New Challenge: With this new access to freedoms, the challenge of countries restricting information or access is now more than ever present. As in the article about Yahoo, France was able to restrict information making the access less free for the citizens in that country, compared to other parts of the world.

3. There has been several significant social changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to social media sites has fundamentally changed the way people interact with each other

New Opportunity: By establishing specific structures in place, access to a significant amount more potential people to do business with is available using these social media sites.

New Challenge: With greater access to more people, the amount of noise is constant. So standing out with your message is critical to stand out amongst the crowd.

4. There has been several significant cultural changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to education online or education in general for both genders

New Opportunity: More people are educated now than any part of the history of the world. In recent years with the Millenium Development Goals an emphasis of educating our youth and specifically woman as a priority has taken some real strives forward.

New Challenge: With this material change in focussing in educating women, groups like the Taliban has fired back with scare tactics to keep them out of schools. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 13:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

One of the greatest economic changes to occur will be the ratification of the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) which will allow private companies to solicit unaccredited investors to participate in their startups. Opportunities will be created for entrepreneurs and investors, but the innovation will also account for great investor losses due to the erosion of necessary barriers to fundraising. Additionally, it will create opportunities for fraud.

Another huge change brought about is the access to online education and training. At a time when unemployment is high, online education and training allows for additional specialization and creates opportunities for a large group of people who don't have the flexibility of schedule for traditional learning. A challenge is that quality has not kept up with the technology, so you are seeing a proliferation of sub-par learning experiences offering students degrees that leave them in massive amounts of debt, but don't necessarily make them more attractive of a candidate when it comes time to find a job. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

This whole section of Introduction I found very compelling. The language of the assignment was at first a bit unusual but now I am getting used to such communication. To duscuss the problems I have noticed with the internet, most noteably the discussion about Chinese, I found very compelling. Being different languages cave different means of speech production, the understanding that internet lauguage, like a fax machine, is actually the English I learned made me flip![[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 15:48, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

A cultural change associated with digital technologies is how we share things that we create, whether it is music, photographs, videos/movies, etc and how the "ownership" of these items is decided. Between SOPA and PIPA and other copyright legislation, as well as the whole idea of open access, as much as we are able to share things with each other so much easier through technology, it opens a whole set of challenges as to how and if we monitor and control the sharing.

Another change is the reliance we have on search engines like Yahoo and Google in how we find information. While we use these gateways to comb the Internet for us and to make the process seemingly simpler, we also, at times, have a false sense of comfort that we are getting all of the information available through these search engines when that’s not always the case. As we have fewer and fewer search engines available, the monopoly that a search engine has on our ability to find information and relevant information online grows. And as this happens, we also tend to settle for the initial results rather than taking the time to dig deeper. We put a lot of faith in our search engines.

The Internet has given us numerous new ways to interact and communicate with each other. One way in particular that I think has really changed how we communicate is the anonymity that the Internet provides. There are challenges and opportunities that arise from this. While people often will say things online anonymously that they may not say to a person in real life there are often times where being able to be anonymous on the Internet, allows people a sense of comfort and place that may be lacking in their everyday life. [[User:Nfonsh|Nfonsh]] 16:05, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I believe that the revolution in cloud computing offers the greatest potential to reshape the landscapes of various sectors and institutions. Take online media for example; In the past 15 years, we have seen the eradication of media giants like Blockbusters and Borders due to the increase in accessibility of online media. Hubs like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and other online institutions offer a wider selection and more accessible means of acquiring movies, music, and books. Another positive benefit as a result of the growth in the cloud is greater ease of accessibility over a wider range of devices to digital content. Institutions like Harvard, MIT, and TED have made it possible to access educational information and series on devices like the iPad and iPhone. I believe that this kind of freedom of information will very shortly become the new standard for information access so that the entire world may consume digital media with the ease of accessing it through a personal smart device. While there is great upside with the revolution in speed and efficiency of online access and cloud computing, the greatest risk is security. Because a greater concentration of more valuable information will be stored on networks vulnerable to hackers, I believe that online security will be one of the most important focal points of the next 10 years. As sectors and institutions make the transition to the online world, they will necessitate a more reliable solution to safeguarding highly sensitive information like social security numbers, credit card information, and personal privacy. The Gizmodo story here highlights some of the potential personal privacy issues that will need to be addressed in the near future: http://gizmodo.com/5880593/the-apple-bug-that-let-us-spy-on-a-total-strangers-iphone [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 17:34, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
Historically, humans innovate for the purpose of communication, so the most significant change associated with digital technologies is how communication has become easier. The possibility of faster communication influences in all aspects of people's life. Easy communication also implies more access to information, and that is exactly what runs the world today. Those who are able to take advantage of all this available information to make fair commercial relations without invading other's privacy will succeed. However, the biggest challenge is related to privacy, too. Is it possible to regulate internet without censorship? Internet is currently the arena where a big conflict between freedom of expression and safety is playing out.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 20:13, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
There are two technologies, or classes of technologies, which I believe have had a significant social, cultural, political and economic effect on the world. The first are called web 2.0 technologies, which imply a new version of something but really is just an evolution of the way people used the world wide web. The web first came into existence in 1994 when web browsers and the language of the web - HTML - became prevalent. Static web pages were built by the millions and the three letters www and the phrase "dot com" became part of many people's lexicon. However, starting in the late 1990's and into the early 2000's, people were learning to use the same world wide web in different ways. Collaboration was becoming common with wikis (like this page) and content/document sharing application such as Microsoft Sharepoint. Social networking sites, most notably MySpace and Facebook, in addition to video sharing sites like YouTube allowed user-driven content to drive a good chunk of Internet activity. This mini-revolution allowed the Internet to go from being a place where your average person went to be a consumer of information to a place where the same average person would create and generate information as much as consume it. These technologies also made the Internet much more friendly to the young, old and people of all ages who were not overly tech savvy.

The second class of technologies that have revolutionized the world to a large extent are wireless technologies. This includes satellite, cellular, WiFi (802.11) and Bluetooth which all have had a profound effect on connecting the average person up to the global network of digital information more easily and frequently. Fifteen years ago, only a small fragment of the population owned cellular phones. In 2013, a large majority of the population owns cellular phones, many of which are smart phones with touch screens, access to hundreds of thousands of applications and other features such as cameras and Internet access. Wireless technologies have also brought the ability to communicate with much of the world to places where wired infrastructure does not currently exist. Wireless communications have opened up the online world to people across the globe who wouldn't otherwise have access to such a place.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 23:44, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I think what's striking is how digital technologies have empowered both decentralized grassroots movements as well as centralized corporate and political institutions. Using the Internet, businesses can profit from enormous amounts of consumer data, broaden markets, and globalize their workforce, while governments are afforded new platforms for engaging with citizens (We the People petitioning system) or censoring and monitoring them. At the same time, citizens gain amazing new tools for media production and self-expression, collective organization, and knowledge access. Sometimes top-down centralization and bottom-up decentralization interact together to make everyone better off (New York City's 311 program for example) other times they fundamentally clash (BitTorrent and the recording industries). So to me, digital tech intensifies the struggle between bottom up and top down powers and increases the complexity in the relationship, as both forces struggle to understand what the Internet is, what it can do, and what it should be.

Look forward to exploring this theme in class. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:40, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*******

Assignment 0

I think the top three challenges of the Internet are:

1. Network neutrality - telco's dictating to me what traffic is good / bad, and given that, what I'd have to pay more for to use the 'bad' apps

2. Governments tapping and spying on the internets users

3. Government's using the internet as a battlefield (cyberwar).

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 21:51, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

The spread of digital technology has impacted and changed the way the global society communicates and operates. It seems the increased speed, frequency, access, and reach of digital communicates has had the most significant impact economically, socially, culturally, and politically. These positive impacts have come with many unintended consequences left to be managed or navigated.--[[User:Jspain|Jspain]] 10:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

During my recent travels in Southeast Asia, I observed a great many people using internet accessible smart phones, including new iphones, in both the urban and rural areas of Thailand, Cambodia and Singapore. How will this proliferating access to the world wide web affect those societies that reputedly limit free speech, especially in the area of political dissent? [[User:Nleblanc|Nleblanc]] 10:30, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

Top three challenges of the internet are:

1. Government seeking more control, through laws and taxes
2. Piracy and anti-piracy activities
3. The changing nature of privacy

[[User:Jennga|Jennga]] 12:00, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Good afternoon, the must big changes in the society, since internet have been created are:

1. There´s a new concept of the right of freedom expressión.

2. Therés a new concept of what is the best way to protect intellectual property.

3. Finally one of the must sensitive changes, is that we all can know what is happening around the world in just one second.
´´´´
natalia.

********

A list of the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies would certainly include: the complexity of financial instruments and the difficulty governments and central banks are having understanding and regulating them; the issues regarding government surveillance of not only its citizens, but of citizens of other countries both within and outside its borders, what governments are choosing to do with this information, and the relative slowness of the courts and laws to react; and the facilitation of communication among geographically disparate groups: for example the use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube during the Arab Spring to create a sense of common cause, as well as to distribute images that built a large base of support globally for governments to respond, making it difficult, for example, for the U.S. to continue to support governments that were less than democratic, but perhaps, more than useful. It would be hard to ignore the changes digital technologies have had on our daily lives - who carries a map when traveling, when we can create and e-mail a url with the day’s locations to our phones and open this map to get directions from where we are to where we want to go next, how wonderful to carry not one, but many books and magazines in a device smaller than a deck of cards and be able to use that device to purchase more, anytime, anywhere, and finally, what bliss to be able skim a long list of voice mail rather than replaying each one over and over again to get to that all-important name and phone number.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:28, 29 January 2013 (EST)

********

Between the several changes that internet and digital technologies brought, I would like to mention:

1) The widespread of information and knowledge. Nowadays you don't have to go to India to know how Indian's think, you can just get into a forum and speak with an Indian yourself; you can study and get a degree or do an investigation for a thesis from your own house and a service for a person in Europe can be given by someone in Asia, just to mention some examples. Knowledge is at the distance of a click, but still there are lots of people having difficulties to access it. Thus, one of the main challenges I think we are facing nowadays is to find the way to actually empower people for them to be able to make the most of what internet and digital technologies offer us.

2) The possibility of everyone to have a voice in a discussion, and to build support towards that voice. It has been mentioned before the role 2.0 technologies had in unifying people during the arab spring, or the "Indignados" movement that started in Spain.

3) The possibility to crowdsource and co create. Before social media, content was created by one person and read by another one but nowadays everyone has the opportunity to create content, and that content can easily be improved by lots of people willing to. The power of crowdsourcing and co creating is changing the way governments, business, universities or NGOs work in order to became more open and collaborative. Open Data is playing a key role in giving people the tool to create new products and services as well as improving the existing ones. [[User:Maria|Maria]] 14:41, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

While the Internet has been a boon in many areas, it is clear that society didn't have a chance to really think through the long term consequences of this technology. Like all major overlays to how a society functions, a newness offers the opportunity for change and growth. As mentioned in the class material, while the original plan was to have a base line of equal access, the users of the technology became more powerful than the technology itself. Governments forged beachheads in the form of firewalls and spyware and societies shook out into the clusters that were familiar and comforting. Even with the access, the multitudes of messaging slow most of us down from engaging the other side in the argument mostly out of sheer exhaustion. "The world at our finger tips" has us using the Internet in all hardware forms for everything from the world events to what is happening on your street. Has our reliance on Internet cloud based services made us complacent or curious to know more about things that would have taken weeks - perhaps months - to be aware of in prior times (those times not being that long ago) With all this digital nakedness, the pendulum has started to swing in the other direction. As the EU presented the legal argument for the "right to be forgotten" in the digital world, it will be interesting to see if global access will further compartmentalize. A ruling of that nature of the next couple of years in and of itself would have massive ramifications on social, economic and political frameworks.[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 14:55, 29 January 2013 (EST) Caroline

******
I'm not too great at naming superlatives, but here are some interesting social phenomena I believe have emerged from cyber-social culture.
Online communities and social media have created an opportunity to construct an online identity, to carefully curate one's own portrayal. People suffering offline from prejudice or persecution may seek shelter in their cyber personas and communities, as they offer a safe space for them to form real relationships and be their truest selves. However, on the other hand, the process of picking and choosing certain parts of a persona to reveal and others to hide may have psychological and social consequences. For instance, "liking" items on Facebook or writing an "About Me" on OkCupid facilitates a segmented rather fluid sense of self. While Internet communities have offered shelter to many lost, confused stragglers, it also makes us prone to labeling, categorizing, and sub-sub-sub categorizing ourselves in order to "belong."

Social media has also made comparison to others unavoidable, but also against much more unrealistic standards. Nobody uploads pictures while alone, watching Forrest Gump, tears splattering into their tub of Phish Food ice cream. Unless you do, and then you're keeping it real. Nobody posts what they don't want others to see or know. Basically, social media exposes us to a very choppy, glossy image of how people live. Based on my own personal experience, nothing makes me more depressed then going on Facebook when I'm depressed.

Lastly, open-source cyber environments such as Wikipedia and Ebay have granted more faith in direct democracy. The success of an EBay store, for instance, relies almost entirely on the experiences of each previous customer. There are no representatives or filtration systems, every user's experience counts fully and equally. However, it is not just the use of the direct democracy that makes these online environments remarkable, but how such systems have proven themselves reliable and prosperous.

[[User:Jax|Jax]] 15:54, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1. With such a massive amount of information readily available on the internet and through other digital media (how to tend a garden, how to change your brakes, proper etiquette at a Japanese wedding, etc.) there is no longer a large need for the cultural passing of information through the generations which has been the norm for tens of thousands of years. Instead we now need only to learn the building blocks of HOW to learn and WHEN/WHERE to apply this information which is a radical shift from memorization to computation. This also allows us to spend the preponderance of our time focusing on skill specialization and leisure activities.

2. Social media is having many impacts on our culture which are simultaneously abstracting us from the real-world relationships we would have without digital technology as well as connecting us with those far-flung friends/family we would otherwise completely lose touch with.

3. The internet causes a very interesting effect with it's ability to create heavily polarized groups based on issues they might not have understood prior to the digital age. Mass media (Newspapers, Radio & TV News) dominated the information available to the public for the 20th century and now people are able to access information from other countries (BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.) With so many different viewpoints not being controlled by large corporations and/or the government shows many different vectors into the same "stories". [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****

The internet is beyond fascinating in its potential to redefine politics of global control. As this week's readings suggest, the internet is not governable in the way that most governments work to control their citizens. It offers an alternative space for those whose voices are often shut down in the public sphere. Anonymity and global reach provides comfort in individuals sharing their viewpoints, and as seen in the recent uprisings in the Middle East, can pave the way for mass movements to arise in bringing forth change and connect with likeminded individuals who may not have been given the opportunity to meet otherwise.
What's more, the rise in digital technologies offers immense opportunities for redefining local economies in lesser developed regions. Today, you see the rise in mobile phones changing the way farmers in East Africa determine which crops to bring to market and the price at which they plan to sell. The communications barriers have consequently relaxed and made way for innovation and experimentation.
Yet another example of change as a result of digital technologies' spread is the perceived cultural blending worldwide. Globalisation's effects have meshed languages, cultural norms, consumer likes and dislikes, etc. Some even fear the convergence of culture in response to technology's spread threatens the legacies of indigenous cultural groups and erodes at their continuity.
Kaley Sweeney 16:26, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****
I believe that one of the most significant changes associated with the Internet is the way people can buy and sell services and products. E-commerce made a complete revolution in the way people do business without any precedence in our history. According to Forrester Research in http://www.wwwmetrics.com/shopping.htm the use of the Internet for shopping has been exponentially increasing. Only in the United States, $248.7 billion online sales are expected by 2014 and 10% more is forecast for the next five years. In Western Europe, online sales are expected to reach approximately 14 billion euros ($155.7 billion) and a growth of 11% percent annually. Another change that is related to e-commerce is the fact that it gives people so many tools in doing their own business that it could trigger the extinction of some markets. For example, travel companies might disappear in the near future because it will be impossible to compete with virtual companies like "Booking.com" or “Expedia”, which have very competitive prices, a wide variety of options and can be quickly and easily operated by anyone without the inconvenience of having to go to a travel agency. In summary, e-commerce is not just a revolution in the way people can buy and sell services and products, but it will be yet a cause of extinction for some traditional markets for which the impacts are still unknown. ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 16:27, 29 January 2013 (EST))

*********

1) Many digital users believe that all content on the Internet is (or should be) free. What are the costs of a seemingly "free" Internet? Who funds or pays for the Internet?
2) As digital technologies become increasingly significant in daily life, should we work to lessen the digital divide domestically? Internationally?[[User:JW|JW]] 16:39, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********
We stand at the precipice of a new world. We hold an opportunity to connect with each other and share information like never before possible in human history. Now the question is what do we do with it?

How do we bridge the gap between the new hive mind of the internet and the preexisting societies that surround us?

•“This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different” John Perry Barlow (A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace).

•“ Information wants to be free” (Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

•Ability to organize, discover, exclude and deliver information ( Tim Berners- Lee )

•“ If you want to liberate a society just give them the internet” – Wael Ghonim ( MacKinnon)

How do we protect this opportunity and prevent a “race to the bottom"?

•“I don’t like the outcome of what happens with these things… but we have to follow the law.” Yang ( Yahoo Founder from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

•We need a broader more sustained internet freedom movement and a culture of sustained activism (Rebecca MacKinnon: Let’s take back the internet!)

•Citizen-centric evolution of the internet (Mackinnon)

How do we ensure that all people have access to information and prevent “those in advantageous position” from reaping the benefits of the internet?

•We need to create a society of computer literate people

•Encourage innovation and exploration

•Will language connect or separate us ? On learning English “Because, father, the computer speaks English.” ( Al Gore repeating anecdote from President Akayev of Kyrgyzstan from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-01-29T21:59:46Z

Alybarbour: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 29'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But from its humble beginnings the Internet has always felt like more than this. The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 6 minutes, watch all)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmMNRHktX8 Jonathan Zittrain, How the Internet Works] (approx. 4 mins., watch all)

* [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders (Legal Affairs)]

* [http://www.webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-DigitalDivideWhatToDo2007.pdf Eszter Hargittai, The Digital Divide and What to Do About It (New Economy Handbook)] (focus on Sections I-III)

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences/Overview/Digital-differences.aspx Pew Internet & American Life Project, Digital Differences 2012] (read intro, skim the sections).

* [http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html Rebecca MacKinnon, Let’s Take Back the Internet! (TED.com)] (approx. 15 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto)

* [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/03/the_third_wave.htm Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! [[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 10:00, 28 January 2013 (EST)

'''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>

******

1. There has been several significant economic changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to information has impacted the way news is distributed, causing the world investment markets to move faster and become more volatile off of news.

New Opportunity: A greater understanding of how the internet works with distribution can allow for algorithms to be developed through digital technologies to counter act the news as its distributed.

New Challenge: With greater technology being created at the speed of light, it has become difficult to study trends for the investment markets, which are in some respects locked into a web based portal that can control the fate of public companies, instead of fundamentals.

2. There has been several significant political changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to information online about freedoms in the democracies around the world

New Opportunity: In the Middle East this was a major contributing factor in the Arab Spring, to bring and implement change.

New Challenge: With this new access to freedoms, the challenge of countries restricting information or access is now more than ever present. As in the article about Yahoo, France was able to restrict information making the access less free for the citizens in that country, compared to other parts of the world.

3. There has been several significant social changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to social media sites has fundamentally changed the way people interact with each other

New Opportunity: By establishing specific structures in place, access to a significant amount more potential people to do business with is available using these social media sites.

New Challenge: With greater access to more people, the amount of noise is constant. So standing out with your message is critical to stand out amongst the crowd.

4. There has been several significant cultural changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to education online or education in general for both genders

New Opportunity: More people are educated now than any part of the history of the world. In recent years with the Millenium Development Goals an emphasis of educating our youth and specifically woman as a priority has taken some real strives forward.

New Challenge: With this material change in focussing in educating women, groups like the Taliban has fired back with scare tactics to keep them out of schools. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 13:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

One of the greatest economic changes to occur will be the ratification of the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) which will allow private companies to solicit unaccredited investors to participate in their startups. Opportunities will be created for entrepreneurs and investors, but the innovation will also account for great investor losses due to the erosion of necessary barriers to fundraising. Additionally, it will create opportunities for fraud.

Another huge change brought about is the access to online education and training. At a time when unemployment is high, online education and training allows for additional specialization and creates opportunities for a large group of people who don't have the flexibility of schedule for traditional learning. A challenge is that quality has not kept up with the technology, so you are seeing a proliferation of sub-par learning experiences offering students degrees that leave them in massive amounts of debt, but don't necessarily make them more attractive of a candidate when it comes time to find a job. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

This whole section of Introduction I found very compelling. The language of the assignment was at first a bit unusual but now I am getting used to such communication. To duscuss the problems I have noticed with the internet, most noteably the discussion about Chinese, I found very compelling. Being different languages cave different means of speech production, the understanding that internet lauguage, like a fax machine, is actually the English I learned made me flip![[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 15:48, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

A cultural change associated with digital technologies is how we share things that we create, whether it is music, photographs, videos/movies, etc and how the "ownership" of these items is decided. Between SOPA and PIPA and other copyright legislation, as well as the whole idea of open access, as much as we are able to share things with each other so much easier through technology, it opens a whole set of challenges as to how and if we monitor and control the sharing.

Another change is the reliance we have on search engines like Yahoo and Google in how we find information. While we use these gateways to comb the Internet for us and to make the process seemingly simpler, we also, at times, have a false sense of comfort that we are getting all of the information available through these search engines when that’s not always the case. As we have fewer and fewer search engines available, the monopoly that a search engine has on our ability to find information and relevant information online grows. And as this happens, we also tend to settle for the initial results rather than taking the time to dig deeper. We put a lot of faith in our search engines.

The Internet has given us numerous new ways to interact and communicate with each other. One way in particular that I think has really changed how we communicate is the anonymity that the Internet provides. There are challenges and opportunities that arise from this. While people often will say things online anonymously that they may not say to a person in real life there are often times where being able to be anonymous on the Internet, allows people a sense of comfort and place that may be lacking in their everyday life. [[User:Nfonsh|Nfonsh]] 16:05, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I believe that the revolution in cloud computing offers the greatest potential to reshape the landscapes of various sectors and institutions. Take online media for example; In the past 15 years, we have seen the eradication of media giants like Blockbusters and Borders due to the increase in accessibility of online media. Hubs like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and other online institutions offer a wider selection and more accessible means of acquiring movies, music, and books. Another positive benefit as a result of the growth in the cloud is greater ease of accessibility over a wider range of devices to digital content. Institutions like Harvard, MIT, and TED have made it possible to access educational information and series on devices like the iPad and iPhone. I believe that this kind of freedom of information will very shortly become the new standard for information access so that the entire world may consume digital media with the ease of accessing it through a personal smart device. While there is great upside with the revolution in speed and efficiency of online access and cloud computing, the greatest risk is security. Because a greater concentration of more valuable information will be stored on networks vulnerable to hackers, I believe that online security will be one of the most important focal points of the next 10 years. As sectors and institutions make the transition to the online world, they will necessitate a more reliable solution to safeguarding highly sensitive information like social security numbers, credit card information, and personal privacy. The Gizmodo story here highlights some of the potential personal privacy issues that will need to be addressed in the near future: http://gizmodo.com/5880593/the-apple-bug-that-let-us-spy-on-a-total-strangers-iphone [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 17:34, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
Historically, humans innovate for the purpose of communication, so the most significant change associated with digital technologies is how communication has become easier. The possibility of faster communication influences in all aspects of people's life. Easy communication also implies more access to information, and that is exactly what runs the world today. Those who are able to take advantage of all this available information to make fair commercial relations without invading other's privacy will succeed. However, the biggest challenge is related to privacy, too. Is it possible to regulate internet without censorship? Internet is currently the arena where a big conflict between freedom of expression and safety is playing out.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 20:13, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
There are two technologies, or classes of technologies, which I believe have had a significant social, cultural, political and economic effect on the world. The first are called web 2.0 technologies, which imply a new version of something but really is just an evolution of the way people used the world wide web. The web first came into existence in 1994 when web browsers and the language of the web - HTML - became prevalent. Static web pages were built by the millions and the three letters www and the phrase "dot com" became part of many people's lexicon. However, starting in the late 1990's and into the early 2000's, people were learning to use the same world wide web in different ways. Collaboration was becoming common with wikis (like this page) and content/document sharing application such as Microsoft Sharepoint. Social networking sites, most notably MySpace and Facebook, in addition to video sharing sites like YouTube allowed user-driven content to drive a good chunk of Internet activity. This mini-revolution allowed the Internet to go from being a place where your average person went to be a consumer of information to a place where the same average person would create and generate information as much as consume it. These technologies also made the Internet much more friendly to the young, old and people of all ages who were not overly tech savvy.

The second class of technologies that have revolutionized the world to a large extent are wireless technologies. This includes satellite, cellular, WiFi (802.11) and Bluetooth which all have had a profound effect on connecting the average person up to the global network of digital information more easily and frequently. Fifteen years ago, only a small fragment of the population owned cellular phones. In 2013, a large majority of the population owns cellular phones, many of which are smart phones with touch screens, access to hundreds of thousands of applications and other features such as cameras and Internet access. Wireless technologies have also brought the ability to communicate with much of the world to places where wired infrastructure does not currently exist. Wireless communications have opened up the online world to people across the globe who wouldn't otherwise have access to such a place.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 23:44, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I think what's striking is how digital technologies have empowered both decentralized grassroots movements as well as centralized corporate and political institutions. Using the Internet, businesses can profit from enormous amounts of consumer data, broaden markets, and globalize their workforce, while governments are afforded new platforms for engaging with citizens (We the People petitioning system) or censoring and monitoring them. At the same time, citizens gain amazing new tools for media production and self-expression, collective organization, and knowledge access. Sometimes top-down centralization and bottom-up decentralization interact together to make everyone better off (New York City's 311 program for example) other times they fundamentally clash (BitTorrent and the recording industries). So to me, digital tech intensifies the struggle between bottom up and top down powers and increases the complexity in the relationship, as both forces struggle to understand what the Internet is, what it can do, and what it should be.

Look forward to exploring this theme in class. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:40, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*******

Assignment 0

I think the top three challenges of the Internet are:

1. Network neutrality - telco's dictating to me what traffic is good / bad, and given that, what I'd have to pay more for to use the 'bad' apps

2. Governments tapping and spying on the internets users

3. Government's using the internet as a battlefield (cyberwar).

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 21:51, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

The spread of digital technology has impacted and changed the way the global society communicates and operates. It seems the increased speed, frequency, access, and reach of digital communicates has had the most significant impact economically, socially, culturally, and politically. These positive impacts have come with many unintended consequences left to be managed or navigated.--[[User:Jspain|Jspain]] 10:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

During my recent travels in Southeast Asia, I observed a great many people using internet accessible smart phones, including new iphones, in both the urban and rural areas of Thailand, Cambodia and Singapore. How will this proliferating access to the world wide web affect those societies that reputedly limit free speech, especially in the area of political dissent? [[User:Nleblanc|Nleblanc]] 10:30, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

Top three challenges of the internet are:

1. Government seeking more control, through laws and taxes
2. Piracy and anti-piracy activities
3. The changing nature of privacy

[[User:Jennga|Jennga]] 12:00, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Good afternoon, the must big changes in the society, since internet have been created are:

1. There´s a new concept of the right of freedom expressión.

2. Therés a new concept of what is the best way to protect intellectual property.

3. Finally one of the must sensitive changes, is that we all can know what is happening around the world in just one second.
´´´´
natalia.

********

A list of the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies would certainly include: the complexity of financial instruments and the difficulty governments and central banks are having understanding and regulating them; the issues regarding government surveillance of not only its citizens, but of citizens of other countries both within and outside its borders, what governments are choosing to do with this information, and the relative slowness of the courts and laws to react; and the facilitation of communication among geographically disparate groups: for example the use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube during the Arab Spring to create a sense of common cause, as well as to distribute images that built a large base of support globally for governments to respond, making it difficult, for example, for the U.S. to continue to support governments that were less than democratic, but perhaps, more than useful. It would be hard to ignore the changes digital technologies have had on our daily lives - who carries a map when traveling, when we can create and e-mail a url with the day’s locations to our phones and open this map to get directions from where we are to where we want to go next, how wonderful to carry not one, but many books and magazines in a device smaller than a deck of cards and be able to use that device to purchase more, anytime, anywhere, and finally, what bliss to be able skim a long list of voice mail rather than replaying each one over and over again to get to that all-important name and phone number.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:28, 29 January 2013 (EST)

********

Between the several changes that internet and digital technologies brought, I would like to mention:

1) The widespread of information and knowledge. Nowadays you don't have to go to India to know how Indian's think, you can just get into a forum and speak with an Indian yourself; you can study and get a degree or do an investigation for a thesis from your own house and a service for a person in Europe can be given by someone in Asia, just to mention some examples. Knowledge is at the distance of a click, but still there are lots of people having difficulties to access it. Thus, one of the main challenges I think we are facing nowadays is to find the way to actually empower people for them to be able to make the most of what internet and digital technologies offer us.

2) The possibility of everyone to have a voice in a discussion, and to build support towards that voice. It has been mentioned before the role 2.0 technologies had in unifying people during the arab spring, or the "Indignados" movement that started in Spain.

3) The possibility to crowdsource and co create. Before social media, content was created by one person and read by another one but nowadays everyone has the opportunity to create content, and that content can easily be improved by lots of people willing to. The power of crowdsourcing and co creating is changing the way governments, business, universities or NGOs work in order to became more open and collaborative. Open Data is playing a key role in giving people the tool to create new products and services as well as improving the existing ones. [[User:Maria|Maria]] 14:41, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

While the Internet has been a boon in many areas, it is clear that society didn't have a chance to really think through the long term consequences of this technology. Like all major overlays to how a society functions, a newness offers the opportunity for change and growth. As mentioned in the class material, while the original plan was to have a base line of equal access, the users of the technology became more powerful than the technology itself. Governments forged beachheads in the form of firewalls and spyware and societies shook out into the clusters that were familiar and comforting. Even with the access, the multitudes of messaging slow most of us down from engaging the other side in the argument mostly out of sheer exhaustion. "The world at our finger tips" has us using the Internet in all hardware forms for everything from the world events to what is happening on your street. Has our reliance on Internet cloud based services made us complacent or curious to know more about things that would have taken weeks - perhaps months - to be aware of in prior times (those times not being that long ago) With all this digital nakedness, the pendulum has started to swing in the other direction. As the EU presented the legal argument for the "right to be forgotten" in the digital world, it will be interesting to see if global access will further compartmentalize. A ruling of that nature of the next couple of years in and of itself would have massive ramifications on social, economic and political frameworks.[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 14:55, 29 January 2013 (EST) Caroline

******
I'm not too great at naming superlatives, but here are some interesting social phenomena I believe have emerged from cyber-social culture.
Online communities and social media have created an opportunity to construct an online identity, to carefully curate one's own portrayal. People suffering offline from prejudice or persecution may seek shelter in their cyber personas and communities, as they offer a safe space for them to form real relationships and be their truest selves. However, on the other hand, the process of picking and choosing certain parts of a persona to reveal and others to hide may have psychological and social consequences. For instance, "liking" items on Facebook or writing an "About Me" on OkCupid facilitates a segmented rather fluid sense of self. While Internet communities have offered shelter to many lost, confused stragglers, it also makes us prone to labeling, categorizing, and sub-sub-sub categorizing ourselves in order to "belong."

Social media has also made comparison to others unavoidable, but also against much more unrealistic standards. Nobody uploads pictures while alone, watching Forrest Gump, tears splattering into their tub of Phish Food ice cream. Unless you do, and then you're keeping it real. Nobody posts what they don't want others to see or know. Basically, social media exposes us to a very choppy, glossy image of how people live. Based on my own personal experience, nothing makes me more depressed then going on Facebook when I'm depressed.

Lastly, open-source cyber environments such as Wikipedia and Ebay have granted more faith in direct democracy. The success of an EBay store, for instance, relies almost entirely on the experiences of each previous customer. There are no representatives or filtration systems, every user's experience counts fully and equally. However, it is not just the use of the direct democracy that makes these online environments remarkable, but how such systems have proven themselves reliable and prosperous.

[[User:Jax|Jax]] 15:54, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1. With such a massive amount of information readily available on the internet and through other digital media (how to tend a garden, how to change your brakes, proper etiquette at a Japanese wedding, etc.) there is no longer a large need for the cultural passing of information through the generations which has been the norm for tens of thousands of years. Instead we now need only to learn the building blocks of HOW to learn and WHEN/WHERE to apply this information which is a radical shift from memorization to computation. This also allows us to spend the preponderance of our time focusing on skill specialization and leisure activities.

2. Social media is having many impacts on our culture which are simultaneously abstracting us from the real-world relationships we would have without digital technology as well as connecting us with those far-flung friends/family we would otherwise completely lose touch with.

3. The internet causes a very interesting effect with it's ability to create heavily polarized groups based on issues they might not have understood prior to the digital age. Mass media (Newspapers, Radio & TV News) dominated the information available to the public for the 20th century and now people are able to access information from other countries (BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.) With so many different viewpoints not being controlled by large corporations and/or the government shows many different vectors into the same "stories". [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****

The internet is beyond fascinating in its potential to redefine politics of global control. As this week's readings suggest, the internet is not governable in the way that most governments work to control their citizens. It offers an alternative space for those whose voices are often shut down in the public sphere. Anonymity and global reach provides comfort in individuals sharing their viewpoints, and as seen in the recent uprisings in the Middle East, can pave the way for mass movements to arise in bringing forth change and connect with likeminded individuals who may not have been given the opportunity to meet otherwise.
What's more, the rise in digital technologies offers immense opportunities for redefining local economies in lesser developed regions. Today, you see the rise in mobile phones changing the way farmers in East Africa determine which crops to bring to market and the price at which they plan to sell. The communications barriers have consequently relaxed and made way for innovation and experimentation.
Yet another example of change as a result of digital technologies' spread is the perceived cultural blending worldwide. Globalisation's effects have meshed languages, cultural norms, consumer likes and dislikes, etc. Some even fear the convergence of culture in response to technology's spread threatens the legacies of indigenous cultural groups and erodes at their continuity.
Kaley Sweeney 16:26, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****
I believe that one of the most significant changes associated with the Internet is the way people can buy and sell services and products. E-commerce made a complete revolution in the way people do business without any precedence in our history. According to Forrester Research in http://www.wwwmetrics.com/shopping.htm the use of the Internet for shopping has been exponentially increasing. Only in the United States, $248.7 billion online sales are expected by 2014 and 10% more is forecast for the next five years. In Western Europe, online sales are expected to reach approximately 14 billion euros ($155.7 billion) and a growth of 11% percent annually. Another change that is related to e-commerce is the fact that it gives people so many tools in doing their own business that it could trigger the extinction of some markets. For example, travel companies might disappear in the near future because it will be impossible to compete with virtual companies like "Booking.com" or “Expedia”, which have very competitive prices, a wide variety of options and can be quickly and easily operated by anyone without the inconvenience of having to go to a travel agency. In summary, e-commerce is not just a revolution in the way people can buy and sell services and products, but it will be yet a cause of extinction for some traditional markets for which the impacts are still unknown. ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 16:27, 29 January 2013 (EST))

*********

1) Many digital users believe that all content on the Internet is (or should be) free. What are the costs of a seemingly "free" Internet? Who funds or pays for the Internet?
2) As digital technologies become increasingly significant in daily life, should we work to lessen the digital divide domestically? Internationally?[[User:JW|JW]] 16:39, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

We stand at the precipice of a new world. We hold an opportunity to connect with each other and share information like never before possible in human history. Now the question is what do we do with it?
#1. How do we bridge the gap between the new hive mind of the internet and the preexisting societies that surround us?
• “This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different” John Perry Barlow (A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace).

• “ Information wants to be free” (Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

• Ability to organize, discover, exclude and deliver information ( Tim Berners- Lee )

• “ If you want to liberate a society just give them the internet” – Wael Ghonim ( MacKinnon)

#2. How do we protect this opportunity and prevent a “race to the bottom”.

• “I don’t like the outcome of what happens with these things… but we have to follow the law.” Yang ( Yahoo Founder from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

• We need a broader more sustained internet freedom movement and a culture of sustained activism (Rebecca MacKinnon: Let’s take back the internet!)

• Citizen-centric evolution of the internet (Mackinnon)

#3. How do we ensure that all people have access to information and prevent “those in advantageous position” from reaping the benefits of the internet?

• We need to create a society of computer literate people

• Encourage innovation and exploration

• Will language connect or separate us ? On learning English “Because, father, the computer speaks English.” ( Al Gore repeating anecdote from President Akayev of Kyrgyzstan from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-01-29T21:58:30Z

Alybarbour: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 29'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But from its humble beginnings the Internet has always felt like more than this. The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 6 minutes, watch all)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmMNRHktX8 Jonathan Zittrain, How the Internet Works] (approx. 4 mins., watch all)

* [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders (Legal Affairs)]

* [http://www.webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-DigitalDivideWhatToDo2007.pdf Eszter Hargittai, The Digital Divide and What to Do About It (New Economy Handbook)] (focus on Sections I-III)

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences/Overview/Digital-differences.aspx Pew Internet & American Life Project, Digital Differences 2012] (read intro, skim the sections).

* [http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html Rebecca MacKinnon, Let’s Take Back the Internet! (TED.com)] (approx. 15 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto)

* [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/03/the_third_wave.htm Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! [[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 10:00, 28 January 2013 (EST)

'''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>

******

1. There has been several significant economic changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to information has impacted the way news is distributed, causing the world investment markets to move faster and become more volatile off of news.

New Opportunity: A greater understanding of how the internet works with distribution can allow for algorithms to be developed through digital technologies to counter act the news as its distributed.

New Challenge: With greater technology being created at the speed of light, it has become difficult to study trends for the investment markets, which are in some respects locked into a web based portal that can control the fate of public companies, instead of fundamentals.

2. There has been several significant political changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to information online about freedoms in the democracies around the world

New Opportunity: In the Middle East this was a major contributing factor in the Arab Spring, to bring and implement change.

New Challenge: With this new access to freedoms, the challenge of countries restricting information or access is now more than ever present. As in the article about Yahoo, France was able to restrict information making the access less free for the citizens in that country, compared to other parts of the world.

3. There has been several significant social changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to social media sites has fundamentally changed the way people interact with each other

New Opportunity: By establishing specific structures in place, access to a significant amount more potential people to do business with is available using these social media sites.

New Challenge: With greater access to more people, the amount of noise is constant. So standing out with your message is critical to stand out amongst the crowd.

4. There has been several significant cultural changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.

Change: Access to education online or education in general for both genders

New Opportunity: More people are educated now than any part of the history of the world. In recent years with the Millenium Development Goals an emphasis of educating our youth and specifically woman as a priority has taken some real strives forward.

New Challenge: With this material change in focussing in educating women, groups like the Taliban has fired back with scare tactics to keep them out of schools. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 13:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

One of the greatest economic changes to occur will be the ratification of the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) which will allow private companies to solicit unaccredited investors to participate in their startups. Opportunities will be created for entrepreneurs and investors, but the innovation will also account for great investor losses due to the erosion of necessary barriers to fundraising. Additionally, it will create opportunities for fraud.

Another huge change brought about is the access to online education and training. At a time when unemployment is high, online education and training allows for additional specialization and creates opportunities for a large group of people who don't have the flexibility of schedule for traditional learning. A challenge is that quality has not kept up with the technology, so you are seeing a proliferation of sub-par learning experiences offering students degrees that leave them in massive amounts of debt, but don't necessarily make them more attractive of a candidate when it comes time to find a job. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

This whole section of Introduction I found very compelling. The language of the assignment was at first a bit unusual but now I am getting used to such communication. To duscuss the problems I have noticed with the internet, most noteably the discussion about Chinese, I found very compelling. Being different languages cave different means of speech production, the understanding that internet lauguage, like a fax machine, is actually the English I learned made me flip![[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 15:48, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

A cultural change associated with digital technologies is how we share things that we create, whether it is music, photographs, videos/movies, etc and how the "ownership" of these items is decided. Between SOPA and PIPA and other copyright legislation, as well as the whole idea of open access, as much as we are able to share things with each other so much easier through technology, it opens a whole set of challenges as to how and if we monitor and control the sharing.

Another change is the reliance we have on search engines like Yahoo and Google in how we find information. While we use these gateways to comb the Internet for us and to make the process seemingly simpler, we also, at times, have a false sense of comfort that we are getting all of the information available through these search engines when that’s not always the case. As we have fewer and fewer search engines available, the monopoly that a search engine has on our ability to find information and relevant information online grows. And as this happens, we also tend to settle for the initial results rather than taking the time to dig deeper. We put a lot of faith in our search engines.

The Internet has given us numerous new ways to interact and communicate with each other. One way in particular that I think has really changed how we communicate is the anonymity that the Internet provides. There are challenges and opportunities that arise from this. While people often will say things online anonymously that they may not say to a person in real life there are often times where being able to be anonymous on the Internet, allows people a sense of comfort and place that may be lacking in their everyday life. [[User:Nfonsh|Nfonsh]] 16:05, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I believe that the revolution in cloud computing offers the greatest potential to reshape the landscapes of various sectors and institutions. Take online media for example; In the past 15 years, we have seen the eradication of media giants like Blockbusters and Borders due to the increase in accessibility of online media. Hubs like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and other online institutions offer a wider selection and more accessible means of acquiring movies, music, and books. Another positive benefit as a result of the growth in the cloud is greater ease of accessibility over a wider range of devices to digital content. Institutions like Harvard, MIT, and TED have made it possible to access educational information and series on devices like the iPad and iPhone. I believe that this kind of freedom of information will very shortly become the new standard for information access so that the entire world may consume digital media with the ease of accessing it through a personal smart device. While there is great upside with the revolution in speed and efficiency of online access and cloud computing, the greatest risk is security. Because a greater concentration of more valuable information will be stored on networks vulnerable to hackers, I believe that online security will be one of the most important focal points of the next 10 years. As sectors and institutions make the transition to the online world, they will necessitate a more reliable solution to safeguarding highly sensitive information like social security numbers, credit card information, and personal privacy. The Gizmodo story here highlights some of the potential personal privacy issues that will need to be addressed in the near future: http://gizmodo.com/5880593/the-apple-bug-that-let-us-spy-on-a-total-strangers-iphone [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 17:34, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
Historically, humans innovate for the purpose of communication, so the most significant change associated with digital technologies is how communication has become easier. The possibility of faster communication influences in all aspects of people's life. Easy communication also implies more access to information, and that is exactly what runs the world today. Those who are able to take advantage of all this available information to make fair commercial relations without invading other's privacy will succeed. However, the biggest challenge is related to privacy, too. Is it possible to regulate internet without censorship? Internet is currently the arena where a big conflict between freedom of expression and safety is playing out.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 20:13, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
There are two technologies, or classes of technologies, which I believe have had a significant social, cultural, political and economic effect on the world. The first are called web 2.0 technologies, which imply a new version of something but really is just an evolution of the way people used the world wide web. The web first came into existence in 1994 when web browsers and the language of the web - HTML - became prevalent. Static web pages were built by the millions and the three letters www and the phrase "dot com" became part of many people's lexicon. However, starting in the late 1990's and into the early 2000's, people were learning to use the same world wide web in different ways. Collaboration was becoming common with wikis (like this page) and content/document sharing application such as Microsoft Sharepoint. Social networking sites, most notably MySpace and Facebook, in addition to video sharing sites like YouTube allowed user-driven content to drive a good chunk of Internet activity. This mini-revolution allowed the Internet to go from being a place where your average person went to be a consumer of information to a place where the same average person would create and generate information as much as consume it. These technologies also made the Internet much more friendly to the young, old and people of all ages who were not overly tech savvy.

The second class of technologies that have revolutionized the world to a large extent are wireless technologies. This includes satellite, cellular, WiFi (802.11) and Bluetooth which all have had a profound effect on connecting the average person up to the global network of digital information more easily and frequently. Fifteen years ago, only a small fragment of the population owned cellular phones. In 2013, a large majority of the population owns cellular phones, many of which are smart phones with touch screens, access to hundreds of thousands of applications and other features such as cameras and Internet access. Wireless technologies have also brought the ability to communicate with much of the world to places where wired infrastructure does not currently exist. Wireless communications have opened up the online world to people across the globe who wouldn't otherwise have access to such a place.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 23:44, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I think what's striking is how digital technologies have empowered both decentralized grassroots movements as well as centralized corporate and political institutions. Using the Internet, businesses can profit from enormous amounts of consumer data, broaden markets, and globalize their workforce, while governments are afforded new platforms for engaging with citizens (We the People petitioning system) or censoring and monitoring them. At the same time, citizens gain amazing new tools for media production and self-expression, collective organization, and knowledge access. Sometimes top-down centralization and bottom-up decentralization interact together to make everyone better off (New York City's 311 program for example) other times they fundamentally clash (BitTorrent and the recording industries). So to me, digital tech intensifies the struggle between bottom up and top down powers and increases the complexity in the relationship, as both forces struggle to understand what the Internet is, what it can do, and what it should be.

Look forward to exploring this theme in class. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:40, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*******

Assignment 0

I think the top three challenges of the Internet are:

1. Network neutrality - telco's dictating to me what traffic is good / bad, and given that, what I'd have to pay more for to use the 'bad' apps

2. Governments tapping and spying on the internets users

3. Government's using the internet as a battlefield (cyberwar).

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 21:51, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

The spread of digital technology has impacted and changed the way the global society communicates and operates. It seems the increased speed, frequency, access, and reach of digital communicates has had the most significant impact economically, socially, culturally, and politically. These positive impacts have come with many unintended consequences left to be managed or navigated.--[[User:Jspain|Jspain]] 10:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

During my recent travels in Southeast Asia, I observed a great many people using internet accessible smart phones, including new iphones, in both the urban and rural areas of Thailand, Cambodia and Singapore. How will this proliferating access to the world wide web affect those societies that reputedly limit free speech, especially in the area of political dissent? [[User:Nleblanc|Nleblanc]] 10:30, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

Top three challenges of the internet are:

1. Government seeking more control, through laws and taxes
2. Piracy and anti-piracy activities
3. The changing nature of privacy

[[User:Jennga|Jennga]] 12:00, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Good afternoon, the must big changes in the society, since internet have been created are:

1. There´s a new concept of the right of freedom expressión.

2. Therés a new concept of what is the best way to protect intellectual property.

3. Finally one of the must sensitive changes, is that we all can know what is happening around the world in just one second.
´´´´
natalia.

********

A list of the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies would certainly include: the complexity of financial instruments and the difficulty governments and central banks are having understanding and regulating them; the issues regarding government surveillance of not only its citizens, but of citizens of other countries both within and outside its borders, what governments are choosing to do with this information, and the relative slowness of the courts and laws to react; and the facilitation of communication among geographically disparate groups: for example the use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube during the Arab Spring to create a sense of common cause, as well as to distribute images that built a large base of support globally for governments to respond, making it difficult, for example, for the U.S. to continue to support governments that were less than democratic, but perhaps, more than useful. It would be hard to ignore the changes digital technologies have had on our daily lives - who carries a map when traveling, when we can create and e-mail a url with the day’s locations to our phones and open this map to get directions from where we are to where we want to go next, how wonderful to carry not one, but many books and magazines in a device smaller than a deck of cards and be able to use that device to purchase more, anytime, anywhere, and finally, what bliss to be able skim a long list of voice mail rather than replaying each one over and over again to get to that all-important name and phone number.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:28, 29 January 2013 (EST)

********

Between the several changes that internet and digital technologies brought, I would like to mention:

1) The widespread of information and knowledge. Nowadays you don't have to go to India to know how Indian's think, you can just get into a forum and speak with an Indian yourself; you can study and get a degree or do an investigation for a thesis from your own house and a service for a person in Europe can be given by someone in Asia, just to mention some examples. Knowledge is at the distance of a click, but still there are lots of people having difficulties to access it. Thus, one of the main challenges I think we are facing nowadays is to find the way to actually empower people for them to be able to make the most of what internet and digital technologies offer us.

2) The possibility of everyone to have a voice in a discussion, and to build support towards that voice. It has been mentioned before the role 2.0 technologies had in unifying people during the arab spring, or the "Indignados" movement that started in Spain.

3) The possibility to crowdsource and co create. Before social media, content was created by one person and read by another one but nowadays everyone has the opportunity to create content, and that content can easily be improved by lots of people willing to. The power of crowdsourcing and co creating is changing the way governments, business, universities or NGOs work in order to became more open and collaborative. Open Data is playing a key role in giving people the tool to create new products and services as well as improving the existing ones. [[User:Maria|Maria]] 14:41, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

While the Internet has been a boon in many areas, it is clear that society didn't have a chance to really think through the long term consequences of this technology. Like all major overlays to how a society functions, a newness offers the opportunity for change and growth. As mentioned in the class material, while the original plan was to have a base line of equal access, the users of the technology became more powerful than the technology itself. Governments forged beachheads in the form of firewalls and spyware and societies shook out into the clusters that were familiar and comforting. Even with the access, the multitudes of messaging slow most of us down from engaging the other side in the argument mostly out of sheer exhaustion. "The world at our finger tips" has us using the Internet in all hardware forms for everything from the world events to what is happening on your street. Has our reliance on Internet cloud based services made us complacent or curious to know more about things that would have taken weeks - perhaps months - to be aware of in prior times (those times not being that long ago) With all this digital nakedness, the pendulum has started to swing in the other direction. As the EU presented the legal argument for the "right to be forgotten" in the digital world, it will be interesting to see if global access will further compartmentalize. A ruling of that nature of the next couple of years in and of itself would have massive ramifications on social, economic and political frameworks.[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 14:55, 29 January 2013 (EST) Caroline

******
I'm not too great at naming superlatives, but here are some interesting social phenomena I believe have emerged from cyber-social culture.
Online communities and social media have created an opportunity to construct an online identity, to carefully curate one's own portrayal. People suffering offline from prejudice or persecution may seek shelter in their cyber personas and communities, as they offer a safe space for them to form real relationships and be their truest selves. However, on the other hand, the process of picking and choosing certain parts of a persona to reveal and others to hide may have psychological and social consequences. For instance, "liking" items on Facebook or writing an "About Me" on OkCupid facilitates a segmented rather fluid sense of self. While Internet communities have offered shelter to many lost, confused stragglers, it also makes us prone to labeling, categorizing, and sub-sub-sub categorizing ourselves in order to "belong."

Social media has also made comparison to others unavoidable, but also against much more unrealistic standards. Nobody uploads pictures while alone, watching Forrest Gump, tears splattering into their tub of Phish Food ice cream. Unless you do, and then you're keeping it real. Nobody posts what they don't want others to see or know. Basically, social media exposes us to a very choppy, glossy image of how people live. Based on my own personal experience, nothing makes me more depressed then going on Facebook when I'm depressed.

Lastly, open-source cyber environments such as Wikipedia and Ebay have granted more faith in direct democracy. The success of an EBay store, for instance, relies almost entirely on the experiences of each previous customer. There are no representatives or filtration systems, every user's experience counts fully and equally. However, it is not just the use of the direct democracy that makes these online environments remarkable, but how such systems have proven themselves reliable and prosperous.

[[User:Jax|Jax]] 15:54, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1. With such a massive amount of information readily available on the internet and through other digital media (how to tend a garden, how to change your brakes, proper etiquette at a Japanese wedding, etc.) there is no longer a large need for the cultural passing of information through the generations which has been the norm for tens of thousands of years. Instead we now need only to learn the building blocks of HOW to learn and WHEN/WHERE to apply this information which is a radical shift from memorization to computation. This also allows us to spend the preponderance of our time focusing on skill specialization and leisure activities.

2. Social media is having many impacts on our culture which are simultaneously abstracting us from the real-world relationships we would have without digital technology as well as connecting us with those far-flung friends/family we would otherwise completely lose touch with.

3. The internet causes a very interesting effect with it's ability to create heavily polarized groups based on issues they might not have understood prior to the digital age. Mass media (Newspapers, Radio & TV News) dominated the information available to the public for the 20th century and now people are able to access information from other countries (BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.) With so many different viewpoints not being controlled by large corporations and/or the government shows many different vectors into the same "stories". [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****

The internet is beyond fascinating in its potential to redefine politics of global control. As this week's readings suggest, the internet is not governable in the way that most governments work to control their citizens. It offers an alternative space for those whose voices are often shut down in the public sphere. Anonymity and global reach provides comfort in individuals sharing their viewpoints, and as seen in the recent uprisings in the Middle East, can pave the way for mass movements to arise in bringing forth change and connect with likeminded individuals who may not have been given the opportunity to meet otherwise.
What's more, the rise in digital technologies offers immense opportunities for redefining local economies in lesser developed regions. Today, you see the rise in mobile phones changing the way farmers in East Africa determine which crops to bring to market and the price at which they plan to sell. The communications barriers have consequently relaxed and made way for innovation and experimentation.
Yet another example of change as a result of digital technologies' spread is the perceived cultural blending worldwide. Globalisation's effects have meshed languages, cultural norms, consumer likes and dislikes, etc. Some even fear the convergence of culture in response to technology's spread threatens the legacies of indigenous cultural groups and erodes at their continuity.
Kaley Sweeney 16:26, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****
I believe that one of the most significant changes associated with the Internet is the way people can buy and sell services and products. E-commerce made a complete revolution in the way people do business without any precedence in our history. According to Forrester Research in http://www.wwwmetrics.com/shopping.htm the use of the Internet for shopping has been exponentially increasing. Only in the United States, $248.7 billion online sales are expected by 2014 and 10% more is forecast for the next five years. In Western Europe, online sales are expected to reach approximately 14 billion euros ($155.7 billion) and a growth of 11% percent annually. Another change that is related to e-commerce is the fact that it gives people so many tools in doing their own business that it could trigger the extinction of some markets. For example, travel companies might disappear in the near future because it will be impossible to compete with virtual companies like "Booking.com" or “Expedia”, which have very competitive prices, a wide variety of options and can be quickly and easily operated by anyone without the inconvenience of having to go to a travel agency. In summary, e-commerce is not just a revolution in the way people can buy and sell services and products, but it will be yet a cause of extinction for some traditional markets for which the impacts are still unknown. ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 16:27, 29 January 2013 (EST))

*********

1) Many digital users believe that all content on the Internet is (or should be) free. What are the costs of a seemingly "free" Internet? Who funds or pays for the Internet?
2) As digital technologies become increasingly significant in daily life, should we work to lessen the digital divide domestically? Internationally?[[User:JW|JW]] 16:39, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

We stand at the precipice of a new world. We hold an opportunity to connect with each other and share information like never before possible in human history. Now the question is what do we do with it?
#1. How do we bridge the gap between the new hive mind of the internet and the preexisting societies that surround us?
• “This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different” John Perry Barlow (A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace).
• “ Information wants to be free” (Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))
• Ability to organize, discover, exclude and deliver information ( Tim Berners- Lee )
• “ If you want to liberate a society just give them the internet” – Wael Ghonim ( MacKinnon)

#2. How do we protect this opportunity and prevent a “race to the bottom”.
• “I don’t like the outcome of what happens with these things… but we have to follow the law.” Yang ( Yahoo Founder from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))
• We need a broader more sustained internet freedom movement and a culture of sustained activism (Rebecca MacKinnon: Let’s take back the internet!)
• Citizen-centric evolution of the internet (Mackinnon)

#3. How do we ensure that all people have access to information and prevent “those in advantageous position” from reaping the benefits of the internet?
• We need to create a society of computer literate people
• Encourage innovation and exploration
• Will language connect or separate us ? On learning English “Because, father, the computer speaks English.” ( Al Gore repeating anecdote from President Akayev of Kyrgyzstan from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))