Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2013-04-30T21:35:46Z

Caroline:

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2013 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

It is hard to overstate the role the Internet plays in our lives. The Net has developed not only as the greatest means of producing and sharing information that the world has ever known, but also as a fundamental tool in global political, social, and economic processes. The Net has been heralded by many as nothing less than a means of fundamentally transforming our world into one that is more just, more democratic, and more affluent, while redrawing the boundaries of political and economic power. But the Net is no longer a frontier, and the early days of the Internet exceptionalism have given way to increased regulatory responses. Just as the Internet allowed users to discover new and interesting ways to transform lives, those who seek to control the levers of power around the Internet have discovered means of controlling its content and dissemination, through technological, monetary, normative, and legal means…(4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 29
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 5
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 12
| [[A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 19
| [[Whose Values? International Issues with Internet Regulation]]
|-
| Feb 26
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 5
| [[Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application]]
|-
| Mar 12
| [[Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances]]
|-
| Mar 19
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 26
| [[Collective Action, Politics, and Protests]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Apr 2
| [[Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd]]
|-
| Apr 9
| [[Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism]]
|-
| Apr 16
| [[Informing the Public in the Internet Age]]
|-
| Apr 23
| [[Privacy]]
|-
| Apr 30
| [[The Profitability of the Internet]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| May 7
|''No class - final project preparation''
| ''(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)''
|
|-
| May 14
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations
|''([[Final Project]] due)''
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
* [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/writing.jsp Extension School Writing Center]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==

You can participate during class either by attending in person or through Adobe Connect:

* The class will be held in the conference room at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])

* You can use Adobe Connect to participate during class time. '''Visit [http://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/lstu_e120 our Adobe Connect site] and log in as guest.'''

: We will be experimenting with remote audiovisual presentation through the Adobe Connect platform. We recommend that, if you would like to speak during class, you use a combination headphone/microphone to participate. Alternatively, you may use headphones along with your computer's built-in mic. As a last resort, you can use your computer's built-in mic without headphones, but please be aware that this may cause audio issues for both you and the class as a whole.

: ''Note: When you log in to Adobe Connect, you will log in as a guest. Please use your full name or a pseudonym that will allow us to identify who you are so we can give you credit for your class participation. If you use a pseudonym, let one of the TAs know who you are so we can be sure to give you credit.''

: If you have any trouble running Adobe Connect, please go to the [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm support page on Adobe Connect's site] or click on the "Help" button in the upper right corner of the Connect window.

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School are available [http://cm.dce.harvard.edu/2013/02/23879/dceweb-videopage.shtml here]. Videos are typically available 1-2 days after class.

=='''Contact Information'''==
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: [mailto:is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu]
** There are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

=='''Office Hours'''==

Jeff, Andy, David, and Ryan will all be holding office hours during the normally scheduled class time on May 7th. Please make an appointment by filling your name or username in next to a time slot below. Please also indicate if you'd like to meet in class or over Skype. If you are using Skype, please also email us at is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu with your Skype handle. If you cannot make any of these times but would like to discuss your paper please email us and we'll set up another time to talk.

''Example:
* 5:30-5:45 - asellars Skype''

'''Jeff'''

* 5:30-5:45
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''Andy'''

* 5:30-5:45
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''David'''

* 5:30-5:45
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''Ryan'''

* 5:30-5:45 Caroline - Skype - carolineharvard
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

The Profitability of the Internet

2013-04-30T14:18:36Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 30'''

The rise of the networked economy is changing economic possibilities around the world. From the call centers in India to eBay and the new Internet entrepreneurs, there are many signs that suggest a flatter world fueled by innovative production and marketing strategies. In this session, we will explore the promise and reality of the changing economic tides associated with rising Internet use including those marketing to the long tail and the new oligopolists.

== Assignments ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment #4]] is due before class today. You can upload the assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Wikipedia, Dot-com bubble]

* [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html Chris Anderson, The Long Tail (''Wired'')]

* [http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/07/the_wrong_tale_.html Guy Kawasaki, The Wrong Tail: A Checklist for Long Tail Implementations]

* [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Kevin Kelly, Better than Free]

* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Eric Von Hippel, ''Democratizing Innovation'' (Chapter 8)]

* [http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120730infamous Digital Music News, The Most Infamous Music Infographic, Updated for 2012]

* [http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/ Benjamin Wallace, The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin (''Wired'')]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506376/ivy-league-20-or-just-another-petscom/ Lee Gomes, Ivy League 2.0 or Just Another Pets.com? (''MIT Technology Review'')]

* [http://money.futureofmusic.org/ The Future of Music Coalition, Artist Revenue Streams] (peruse)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

While the phrase "irrational exuberance" was mentioned in the readings, I'm surprised more was not made of it. In the 1990s there was most certainly a rush to jump on any investments that involved a company that had a .com extension to it's name with little or no scrutiny of the books or fundamental numbers of that company. While the bubble was partially based on sound fundamental judgment - the advent of the web browser and the world wide web in 1994 which made the Internet accessible for so many more non-technical people around the world and this created a much bigger market for e-commerce. However, the cart was put a bit before the horse and a lot of the growth associated with the explosion of Internet access was over exaggerated and not based on sound fundamentals.

The Long Tail article brought up an even bigger point than it intended. It pointed out how the Internet offers certain opportunities to exploit niche markets in the entertainment industry, but this goes beyond the entertainment industry to all aspects of the economy and even extends outside of commerce.

As far as Bitcoin is concerned, as someone who works in the information security field, I am immediately and significantly skeptical about the protections any digital currencies provide against fraud, especially with regard to duplication. I would absolutely echo some of the concerns relayed in the article - about the security of sharing the Bitcoin architecture with any number of unknown entities (individuals or groups) and relying on them for the integrity of the network as a whole. Although, I will admit that some of the issues discussed in the article - such as not accidentally deleting your Bitcoin wallet - can be prevented via basic data backup technologies and procedures and utilizing a minimal amount of common sense. I think it still has potential and whether Bitcoin is the currency of the future or not, there will be a legitimate virtual currency that catches fire and crosses international boundaries at some point.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:10, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

As a risk-averse individual, my emotional reaction to the wikipedia article on the dot-com bubble was, "You irresponsible idiots! Weren't any of you thinking rationally?" However, I understand the fervor of the time. I felt more favorably about the dot-com bubble once the article posited at its end that "Nothing important has ever been built without irrational exuberance" and that the speculative mania of the dot-com bubble allowed the infrastructure we have today. Besides the bankruptcy of companies and a glutted job market for computer programmers, I wonder what lasting negative effects from the dot-com bubble we are still experiencing now.

Prompted by CyberRalph's comment, I tried to think of other niche markets for/in the long tail and thought of online fashion rental services that advertise themselves as Netflix for designer dresses, designer handbags, jewelry, plus-size clothing, etc. Can fashion exist in or take advantage of the long tail? Using the checklist for long tail implementations, I think not, yet online fashion rental services continue to proliferate, seemingly launching every quarter.

"Better than Free" crystallized for me why I'm still willing to pay for entertainment. The article also helped me contextualize the abundance of advertising via social media: "In short, the money in this networked economy does not follow the path of the copies. Rather it follows the path of attention, and attention has its own circuits."

My primary take-away from von Hippel's chapter is that we need to create policy that allows users to create and become involved with manufacturing because current policy is not as conducive to innovation as the original policymakers intended.

My quick thoughts on Bitcoin are that (1) it sounds like a libertarian dream, (2) I consider it a fascinating social experiment, and (3) it seems too unregulated to be a viable long-term currency.

[[User:JW|JW]] 23:47, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
****
One of the strangest experiences is reading someone else's take on a time one has lived through. Participating in this course has made it clear to me how quickly the past can get distorted in the present's need for a coherent narrative. And brilliant that the final word (as of this reading) on the dot.com bubble belongs to Fred Wilson.

I worked with one of the founders of one of the bigger names mentioned in the article before he founded that company. And went on to work at an investment bank where my role on an unrelated project had me reading the drafts of the funding documents and analyst reports.

I also worked at a dot.com from late 1999 to the summer of 2000. Flying back and forth between New York and LA (once there and back in the same day), meeting with potential investors, negotiating with possible CEO candidates (senior execs from the big three media companies, partners in consulting firms), phone numbers of partners of big NY law firms on my cell phone, but also dealing with the debt. The bills that weren't going to be paid to creditors who were willing, at least at the beginning, to provide services on the ridiculous valuations not even promised by us, but by the media. Angel investors who were the sons and daughters of some big names in the investment world....And how quickly it stopped once the money ran out. But what we were selling - the ideas - are actually being implemented right now. Wild to see what we dreamed about and pitched finally happening, and how ordinary it all seems now and how offbeat, unusual, hard to get people to get their minds around it was back then.

Kozmo.com isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but it was one of the great things about living through the late 90s in NYC. You logged in, ordered a movie, maybe a pint of Ben and Jerry's and within the hour it was delivered to your door. You dropped the video off with your doorman or en route to work, logged back in, and rented the next night's video. Compared to the fees Blockbuster charged for even a day late video return, Kozmo was insanely cheap and convenient. Eventually they would deliver anything to your door - video players, tv sets.... They weren't covering their costs, everyone knew it, but it was amazing while it lasted.

I was wondering if we were going to get to Bitcoin in this class. The recent Cyprus debacle put Bitcoin front and center, and whether it survives, or another currency similar to it appears, how it is regulated, who will accept it and under what terms, the exchange rate questions, how to mine it, how to store it, the money laundering question, all of this is an entire class on it's own. However, with so much having been written on the topic so recently, I wonder why we were assigned something from last fall?
Looking forward to tonight's class.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 09:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****

Focusing on the market and Internet profitability unites many of the separate topics we’ve covered this semester. Today, everything is a dot-com business, and as a result: privacy has continuously been questioned; copyright has constantly been battled across diverse frontiers; freedom of speech has taken on new meanings; and peer production has brought unknown products to the forefront. To a certain extent, it's challenging to remember what shopping was like before the dot-com bubble. As I read the Wikipedia article I couldn't help but think about the longevity this definition; it seems much more distant than a decade ago. ''"[The dot-com bubble] period was marked by the founding (and, in many cases, spectacular failure) of a group of new Internet-based companies commonly referred to as dot-coms"'' (Wikipedia dot-com definition). The growth of online business has come a long way in the past 15 years, turning into the norm. What will our Internet shopping experiences look like decades from now?

The final quote in the Long Tail article encapsulates two important points that I’d like to address: ''"[R]ecommendations are a remarkably efficient form of marketing...the cultural benefit of all of this [online sharing and recommendations] is much more diversity, reversing the blanding effects of a century of distribution scarcity and ending the tyranny of the hit"'' (Anderson, 2004). First, consumers are the best marketers, because similar to peer production, comments are unfiltered. Word of mouth has taken on new meanings with online shopping—every website now has a "comments section" and consumers share thoughts with no reservation, whether positive or negative. Our shopping decision criteria have thus changed; our purchasing actions have shifted; and our communication practices have helped sell more products (or the contrary in some scenarios). The new buy-sell reality represents countless degrees of separation—when we select a product online, we can view similar recommendations with no end in sight. Does this mean it's easier to sell exclusive products today than in the past, or visa-versa?

Second, we are no longer forced to buy what is on the shelves. Before the Internet, we lived in a finite shopping world limited to geography, but today we can purchase almost anything that comes to mind, in a quick streamlined manner....It is ''fast fulfillment and an infinite selection'' (as mentioned in The Wrong Tail article). To that end, the target market has transformed from the 80/20 rule to the 99% rule (another interesting point reflected). ''"What's really amazing about the Long Tail is the sheer size of it. Combine enough non hits on the Long Tail and you've got a market bigger than the hits. The average Barnes & Noble carries 130,000 titles; yet more than half of Amazon's book sales come from outside its top 130,000 titles. The average Blockbuster carries fewer than 3,000 DVDs; yet a fifth of Netflix rentals are outside its top 3,000 titles….there are niches by the thousands, genre within genre within genre"'' (Anderson, 2004).

Online competition can be viewed from two distinct perspectives: 1) products that were previously unable to sell, due to less publicity, can now become profitable (e.g., unknown books or movies). 2) Products that previously generated high margins must now be sold differently (e.g., music selections, as elaborated in the The Most Infamous Music article). It is an ever-evolving cycle, and as we continue to assess the online market (as providers and consumers), the market will continue to transform around us.

In closing, it has been a pleasure sharing my thoughts on this wiki site for the past few months and reading everyone’s weekly insights. This course has shed light on valuable analytical tools to examine past and future Internet trends, not only surrounding profitability avenues, but also in relation to societal forces that continuously shape our relationships in cyber space. I look forward to evaluating the Politics of Internet Control, from a unique perspective, for many years to come! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 10:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****

These were great articles this week - the Bitcoin article was great background for what is going on in the industry now. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out and shows itself in the next year or so.

My main interest this week was something that I have experienced myself and certainly have been a willing participant by voting with my wallet.... Ah Amazon - how I do enjoy those recommendations based on my prior buying history. Smart and savvy but when you think of the database of information it is a bit scary. Someone wanting to profile my life would certainly wonder why I would have such a love of law and technology books yet pepper my purchase history with everything to do with French Vogue....not a standard cluster group by most, but certainly something that makes Amazon try harder to loop me in with shoe purchases on the splash page. : ) I understand this type of marketing, I work with it to advantage one of my clients and I get the philosophy of making a "connection" with someone to make them feel understood .... while of course gently parting them from their hard earned dollars. I come down on the side of advancement but I do often wonder how business intelligence is disseminated through the servers around the globe - I am a very small cog in the group - but it is interesting how quickly the retailers of products have found a way to suck me in to their lair. [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 10:16, 30 April 2013 (EDT) Caroline

The Profitability of the Internet

2013-04-30T14:16:26Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 30'''

The rise of the networked economy is changing economic possibilities around the world. From the call centers in India to eBay and the new Internet entrepreneurs, there are many signs that suggest a flatter world fueled by innovative production and marketing strategies. In this session, we will explore the promise and reality of the changing economic tides associated with rising Internet use including those marketing to the long tail and the new oligopolists.

== Assignments ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment #4]] is due before class today. You can upload the assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Wikipedia, Dot-com bubble]

* [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html Chris Anderson, The Long Tail (''Wired'')]

* [http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/07/the_wrong_tale_.html Guy Kawasaki, The Wrong Tail: A Checklist for Long Tail Implementations]

* [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Kevin Kelly, Better than Free]

* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Eric Von Hippel, ''Democratizing Innovation'' (Chapter 8)]

* [http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120730infamous Digital Music News, The Most Infamous Music Infographic, Updated for 2012]

* [http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/ Benjamin Wallace, The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin (''Wired'')]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506376/ivy-league-20-or-just-another-petscom/ Lee Gomes, Ivy League 2.0 or Just Another Pets.com? (''MIT Technology Review'')]

* [http://money.futureofmusic.org/ The Future of Music Coalition, Artist Revenue Streams] (peruse)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

While the phrase "irrational exuberance" was mentioned in the readings, I'm surprised more was not made of it. In the 1990s there was most certainly a rush to jump on any investments that involved a company that had a .com extension to it's name with little or no scrutiny of the books or fundamental numbers of that company. While the bubble was partially based on sound fundamental judgment - the advent of the web browser and the world wide web in 1994 which made the Internet accessible for so many more non-technical people around the world and this created a much bigger market for e-commerce. However, the cart was put a bit before the horse and a lot of the growth associated with the explosion of Internet access was over exaggerated and not based on sound fundamentals.

The Long Tail article brought up an even bigger point than it intended. It pointed out how the Internet offers certain opportunities to exploit niche markets in the entertainment industry, but this goes beyond the entertainment industry to all aspects of the economy and even extends outside of commerce.

As far as Bitcoin is concerned, as someone who works in the information security field, I am immediately and significantly skeptical about the protections any digital currencies provide against fraud, especially with regard to duplication. I would absolutely echo some of the concerns relayed in the article - about the security of sharing the Bitcoin architecture with any number of unknown entities (individuals or groups) and relying on them for the integrity of the network as a whole. Although, I will admit that some of the issues discussed in the article - such as not accidentally deleting your Bitcoin wallet - can be prevented via basic data backup technologies and procedures and utilizing a minimal amount of common sense. I think it still has potential and whether Bitcoin is the currency of the future or not, there will be a legitimate virtual currency that catches fire and crosses international boundaries at some point.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:10, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

As a risk-averse individual, my emotional reaction to the wikipedia article on the dot-com bubble was, "You irresponsible idiots! Weren't any of you thinking rationally?" However, I understand the fervor of the time. I felt more favorably about the dot-com bubble once the article posited at its end that "Nothing important has ever been built without irrational exuberance" and that the speculative mania of the dot-com bubble allowed the infrastructure we have today. Besides the bankruptcy of companies and a glutted job market for computer programmers, I wonder what lasting negative effects from the dot-com bubble we are still experiencing now.

Prompted by CyberRalph's comment, I tried to think of other niche markets for/in the long tail and thought of online fashion rental services that advertise themselves as Netflix for designer dresses, designer handbags, jewelry, plus-size clothing, etc. Can fashion exist in or take advantage of the long tail? Using the checklist for long tail implementations, I think not, yet online fashion rental services continue to proliferate, seemingly launching every quarter.

"Better than Free" crystallized for me why I'm still willing to pay for entertainment. The article also helped me contextualize the abundance of advertising via social media: "In short, the money in this networked economy does not follow the path of the copies. Rather it follows the path of attention, and attention has its own circuits."

My primary take-away from von Hippel's chapter is that we need to create policy that allows users to create and become involved with manufacturing because current policy is not as conducive to innovation as the original policymakers intended.

My quick thoughts on Bitcoin are that (1) it sounds like a libertarian dream, (2) I consider it a fascinating social experiment, and (3) it seems too unregulated to be a viable long-term currency.

[[User:JW|JW]] 23:47, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
****
One of the strangest experiences is reading someone else's take on a time one has lived through. Participating in this course has made it clear to me how quickly the past can get distorted in the present's need for a coherent narrative. And brilliant that the final word (as of this reading) on the dot.com bubble belongs to Fred Wilson.

I worked with one of the founders of one of the bigger names mentioned in the article before he founded that company. And went on to work at an investment bank where my role on an unrelated project had me reading the drafts of the funding documents and analyst reports.

I also worked at a dot.com from late 1999 to the summer of 2000. Flying back and forth between New York and LA (once there and back in the same day), meeting with potential investors, negotiating with possible CEO candidates (senior execs from the big three media companies, partners in consulting firms), phone numbers of partners of big NY law firms on my cell phone, but also dealing with the debt. The bills that weren't going to be paid to creditors who were willing, at least at the beginning, to provide services on the ridiculous valuations not even promised by us, but by the media. Angel investors who were the sons and daughters of some big names in the investment world....And how quickly it stopped once the money ran out. But what we were selling - the ideas - are actually being implemented right now. Wild to see what we dreamed about and pitched finally happening, and how ordinary it all seems now and how offbeat, unusual, hard to get people to get their minds around it was back then.

Kozmo.com isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but it was one of the great things about living through the late 90s in NYC. You logged in, ordered a movie, maybe a pint of Ben and Jerry's and within the hour it was delivered to your door. You dropped the video off with your doorman or en route to work, logged back in, and rented the next night's video. Compared to the fees Blockbuster charged for even a day late video return, Kozmo was insanely cheap and convenient. Eventually they would deliver anything to your door - video players, tv sets.... They weren't covering their costs, everyone knew it, but it was amazing while it lasted.

I was wondering if we were going to get to Bitcoin in this class. The recent Cyprus debacle put Bitcoin front and center, and whether it survives, or another currency similar to it appears, how it is regulated, who will accept it and under what terms, the exchange rate questions, how to mine it, how to store it, the money laundering question, all of this is an entire class on it's own. However, with so much having been written on the topic so recently, I wonder why we were assigned something from last fall?
Looking forward to tonight's class.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 09:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****

Focusing on the market and Internet profitability unites many of the separate topics we’ve covered this semester. Today, everything is a dot-com business, and as a result: privacy has continuously been questioned; copyright has constantly been battled across diverse frontiers; freedom of speech has taken on new meanings; and peer production has brought unknown products to the forefront. To a certain extent, it's challenging to remember what shopping was like before the dot-com bubble. As I read the Wikipedia article I couldn't help but think about the longevity this definition; it seems much more distant than a decade ago. ''"[The dot-com bubble] period was marked by the founding (and, in many cases, spectacular failure) of a group of new Internet-based companies commonly referred to as dot-coms"'' (Wikipedia dot-com definition). The growth of online business has come a long way in the past 15 years, turning into the norm. What will our Internet shopping experiences look like decades from now?

The final quote in the Long Tail article encapsulates two important points that I’d like to address: ''"[R]ecommendations are a remarkably efficient form of marketing...the cultural benefit of all of this [online sharing and recommendations] is much more diversity, reversing the blanding effects of a century of distribution scarcity and ending the tyranny of the hit"'' (Anderson, 2004). First, consumers are the best marketers, because similar to peer production, comments are unfiltered. Word of mouth has taken on new meanings with online shopping—every website now has a "comments section" and consumers share thoughts with no reservation, whether positive or negative. Our shopping decision criteria have thus changed; our purchasing actions have shifted; and our communication practices have helped sell more products (or the contrary in some scenarios). The new buy-sell reality represents countless degrees of separation—when we select a product online, we can view similar recommendations with no end in sight. Does this mean it's easier to sell exclusive products today than in the past, or visa-versa?

Second, we are no longer forced to buy what is on the shelves. Before the Internet, we lived in a finite shopping world limited to geography, but today we can purchase almost anything that comes to mind, in a quick streamlined manner....It is ''fast fulfillment and an infinite selection'' (as mentioned in The Wrong Tail article). To that end, the target market has transformed from the 80/20 rule to the 99% rule (another interesting point reflected). ''"What's really amazing about the Long Tail is the sheer size of it. Combine enough non hits on the Long Tail and you've got a market bigger than the hits. The average Barnes & Noble carries 130,000 titles; yet more than half of Amazon's book sales come from outside its top 130,000 titles. The average Blockbuster carries fewer than 3,000 DVDs; yet a fifth of Netflix rentals are outside its top 3,000 titles….there are niches by the thousands, genre within genre within genre"'' (Anderson, 2004).

Online competition can be viewed from two distinct perspectives: 1) products that were previously unable to sell, due to less publicity, can now become profitable (e.g., unknown books or movies). 2) Products that previously generated high margins must now be sold differently (e.g., music selections, as elaborated in the The Most Infamous Music article). It is an ever-evolving cycle, and as we continue to assess the online market (as providers and consumers), the market will continue to transform around us.

In closing, it has been a pleasure sharing my thoughts on this wiki site for the past few months and reading everyone’s weekly insights. This course has shed light on valuable analytical tools to examine past and future Internet trends, not only surrounding profitability avenues, but also in relation to societal forces that continuously shape our relationships in cyber space. I look forward to evaluating the Politics of Internet Control, from a unique perspective, for many years to come! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 10:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****

These were great articles this week - the Bitcoin article was great background for what is going on in the industry now. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out and shows itself in the next year or so.

My main interest this week was the something that I have experienced myself and certainly been a willing participant with by voting with my wallet.... Ah Amazon how I do enjoy those recommendations based on my prior buying history. Smart and savvy but when you think of the database of information it is a bit scary. Someone wanting to profile my life would certainly wonder at why I would have such a love of law and technology books yet pepper my purchase history with everything to do with french Vogue....not quite a cluster group by most standards but certainly something that makes Amazon try harder to loop me in with shoe purchases on the splash page. : ) I understand this type of marketing, I work with it to advantage one of my clients and I get the philosophy of making a "connection" with someone to make them feel understood .... while gently parting them from their hard earned dollars. I come down on the side of advancement but I do often wonder how business intelligence is disseminated through the servers around the globe - I am a very small cog in the group - but it is interesting how quickly the retailers of products have found a way to suck me in to their lair. [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 10:16, 30 April 2013 (EDT) Caroline

Privacy

2013-04-23T19:50:24Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 23'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s own privacy. We have a hard enough time defining the term, much less determining what role it should play in deciding the whos, whats, and hows of Internet governance. Nevertheless, the Internet’s present evolution indicates that unless we spend time contemplating the reinforcing privacy online it way succumb to the interests of profitability, online behavior regulation, cybersecurity, and law enforcement. Today’s class will set a framework for classifying privacy issues and explore how these issues play out in online spaces.

Speaking in class this week will be several members of Berkman's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/youthandmedia Youth and Media Project], as well as our own TA [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dobrien David O'Brien].

== Assignments ==

We have a granted a ''one week extension'' to the rough draft in light of last week's events. Please have those [[Assignment_4_Submissions|uploaded]] before class on April 30th.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127888 Daniel Solove, ''Understanding Privacy'' (Chapter 1)]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/20 Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'' (Chapter 9)]

* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis, ''Blown to Bits'' (Chapter 2)] (focus on pages 36-42: “Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave it All Away”)

* [http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/11/01/parents-survey-coppa.html danah boyd, Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7)] (read “Solutions” through “Rules to Enable Choice About Privacy”)

* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 Johannes Köppel, The International Dimension of the SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf Hal Roberts and John Palfrey, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]

* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship]

* [http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text/futureofreputation-ch7.pdf Dan Solove, ''The Future of Reputation'' (Chapter 7)]

* [http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html Chris Soghoian, 8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight]

* [http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0610105v2.pdf Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov, Robust De-anonymization of Large Datasets (How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset) (''Arxiv'')]

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html?_r=0 Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know It (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

Daniel Solove concisely and accurately summarized the areas of consensus with regards to the definition of privacy when he stated that it encompasses, "(among other things) freedom of thought, control over one’s body, solitude in one’s home, control over personal information, freedom from surveillance, protection of one’s reputation, and protection from searches and interrogations." He also went on to point out that, “Privacy is a value so complex, so entangled in competing and contradictory dimensions, so engorged with various and distinct meanings, that I sometimes despair whether it can be usefully addressed at all.” These two statements probably best summarize where current thought on privacy is at this moment in world history. He goes on to emphasize how important privacy is, "Thus privacy is a fundamental right, essential for freedom, democracy, psychological well-being, individuality, and creativity. It is proclaimed inviolable but decried as detrimental, antisocial, and even pathological."

I see less problems with the actual definition of the core values which comprise privacy and more issues with drawing the borders of where privacy begins and ends. It can (more or less) be defined as the individual having his or her behavior, personal information and life protected from disclosure to anyone whom they wish to not share such information. One solution is to go back to the old paradigm of the good of the individual vs. the good of the collective. With this mindset, I believe there would be a constant shift towards the eroding away at individual privacy for the benefit of society, either real or perceived. Therefore, one must seek a minimal set of privacy rights which can either never be infringed upon, or can only be infringed upon after some sort of mechanism for "due process" has been put in place and followed and properly justified.

There are some who are criticizing police for their recent cordoning off and going house-to-house and searching for one of the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown Massachusetts. There are also those who believe, that while so many cameras in the city of Boston gave law enforcement an advantage in identifying the bombers, the sheer quantity of cameras allows the government too much power. I thought the crowd sourcing effort that the government used (posting pictures of who they strongly believed were involved in the bombing and then allowing the public to voluntarily come forward was an interesting and perhaps good example of a balance between privacy and security that can be struck in the future. With the popularity of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, such efforts have the potential to be very effective, although surely not without critics. Technology certainly makes the issue of privacy much more complicated. Data gathering via the internet, data mining tools and technologies, surveillance drones and public cameras all add further complications to the issue. [[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 20:22, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

****

In my wiki post two weeks ago, on April 9th, I addressed issues surrounding online privacy. I noted that everything we do today is online, and as a result, we may all be hacked at some point in time. The assigned chapter this week by Abelson et al., ''Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave It Away'', further supports my claim with additional examples and relevant quotes.

''"Technology creates opportunities and risks, and people, as individuals and as societies, decide how to live in the changed landscape of new possibilities [i.e., new technology]....We give away information about ourselves—voluntarily leave visible footprints of our daily lives—because we judge, perhaps without thinking about it very much, that the benefits outweigh the costs."''

These two statements are equally relevant for this week’s discussion. A) Technology does indeed create opportunities and risks, and we as the users primarily see things from an opportunistic perspective—quite often, we don’t contemplate the risks. B) Based on our optimism and trust in the technological advancements that surround us, we give our personal information away continuously. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the costs: we need to pay our bills online, manage our finances online, purchase products online, sign-up for services online, and the list goes on. In some circumstances—when one is hacked, for example—the costs trump the benefits; yet, we remain optimistic overall, not because we necessarily want to, but because we need to.

Privacy today impacts all walks of life. RFID technologies, credit cards, supermarket loyalty programs, and beyond, capture personal data for countless reasons. As the consumers, we not only let this happen, but we don’t have a choice, unless we choose to live in a remote reality. Abelson et al. further states that, ''"we give up data about ourselves because we don’t have the time, patience, or single-mindedness about privacy that would be required to live our daily lives in another way."'' Privacy norms will inevitably continue to evolve in-line with technological advancements, and we as the ultimate users must therefore adapt accordingly.

The final quote worth highlighting comes from Zittrain’s article: ''"It is no wonder that people have come to distrust computer-based record-keeping operations. Even in non-governmental settings, an individual’s control over the personal information that he gives to an organization, or that an organization obtains about him, is lessening as the relationship between the giver and receiver of personal data grows more attenuated, impersonal, and diffused....Often [an individual] may not see [a record about him/her], much less contest its accuracy, control its dissemination, or challenge its use by others"'' (Report from the Blue-Ribbon Panel to the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on computers and privacy).

I like this quote because it foreshadows today’s reality, from 40 years ago. Will this same reality be consistent 40 years from now? Will privacy take on new meanings as hacking becomes more prevalent? Will new industries emerge to protect online communications? How will we, as users, continue to adapt to ensure our own privacy across diverse online frontiers?

I look forward to hearing your insights! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:48, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

***
I enjoyed our readings for today’s class in regards to the Internet privacy. With information systems, in my view privacy deals with the collection of misuse of data and information within the cyber arena. More and more information of users is being collected, stored, used, and shared among ample organizations. Who owns this information and knowledge? And what is the limit of the privacy? In my view, privacy is a status wherein an individual can work on his/her information in seclusion, resulting in a selective revelation of one's identity, which can mean anonymity in case a person wants to remain unidentified. Privacy can also be related to the security aspect of an individual or information. While using the Internet, it mainly comprises the use of social networking sites, email facilities and the browse of various other websites. Internet privacy comes on the scene when it comes to website users giving out their personal details on the Internet. For certain websites, which facilitate online shopping, the users are made to input their credit card numbers, the privacy security is limited as the card numbers are being stolen and/or forwarded to the 3rd parties. In case of emailing sites, there are issues about whether third parties should be allowed to store or read emails without informed consent. Whether or not, the third parties should be permitted to track user’s information, which is viewed as another major privacy concern. The other important Internet privacy issue in my view is whether the sites that gather personally identifiable information from the users should store or share it. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:09, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
***

Reflecting upon this week's readings, the discussion on privacy seems so much bigger than a question of laws and regulations. It fully encompasses the ethics and morals of individuals and of their cultures. The current privacy situation forces a person to constantly be ready to defend their reputation. It seems to hold human behavior to a higher standard, which might not be bad. Privacy while participating in online activity seems more like part of "playing the game", however when it comes to secret surveillance or someone else taking photographic images or videos of me and disseminating those images without my consent is another story. It is like living in a glass house or a fish bowl. We've all had bad days and made mistakes, but we do not desire for those to be captured and forever worn like a scarlet letter. This is of particular concern to me, as children are growing and hopefully learning from their mistakes, not permanently labeled for them. Zittrain's chapter brought many additional thoughts to mind such as his example about "good" customers and "bad" customers in a home improvement store. This type of behavior on the part of businesses could perpetuate economic discrimination.

Striking a balance between government control and individual/ non-state actor control is important. Technological advancements often come laden with unintended consequences but that is part of innovation and progress. As the debate and discussion continue, acceptable solutions will emerge.
Question: Does COPPA or another law cover anything about photos or videos being taken of minor children (clothed, not pornographic) and disseminated online without parental consent?
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 12:20, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Privacy is a difficult topic to get legal and moral arms around. Reading the different perspectives for this week, it becomes clear that there aren't any real clear guidelines on how to approach this difficult topic. Protected by a constitutionality? Yes... enforced thoroughly? No.

I pulled up to my drive through bank machine yesterday. The three cameras there recorded my licence plate, a wide angle of my car and my face (finally noticed the small camera next to the key pad.) Was all that really necessary for me to pull 100 dollars? With the readings in mind, I started reviewing how many times I am photographed and cataloged in some obscure (to me) database. Yesterday alone was over 50 (that I know of) and I do not frequent high profile areas. I have no secret clearance or celebrity profile that could possible make these numbers justified yet in a normal course of events during my day I was like an animal that had been tagged with an ear chip for migration observation.

In the Jonathan Zittrain piece, I found the following excerpt to incapsulate the true issues of today. ...."Nowadays an individual must increasingly give information about himself to large and relatively faceless institutions, for handling and use by strangers—unknown, unseen and, all too frequently..." How do we as a society protect against that information being used in a way that we would never think of?.

Another example....here is an article on how software analyzing all the CCTV cameras will be able to alert authorities to behaviour ...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/04/18/httpblogs-scientificamerican-comobservationswp-adminpost-new-phppost_typepost/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_TECH_20130423
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 15:43, 23 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

Privacy

2013-04-23T19:48:23Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 23'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s own privacy. We have a hard enough time defining the term, much less determining what role it should play in deciding the whos, whats, and hows of Internet governance. Nevertheless, the Internet’s present evolution indicates that unless we spend time contemplating the reinforcing privacy online it way succumb to the interests of profitability, online behavior regulation, cybersecurity, and law enforcement. Today’s class will set a framework for classifying privacy issues and explore how these issues play out in online spaces.

Speaking in class this week will be several members of Berkman's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/youthandmedia Youth and Media Project], as well as our own TA [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dobrien David O'Brien].

== Assignments ==

We have a granted a ''one week extension'' to the rough draft in light of last week's events. Please have those [[Assignment_4_Submissions|uploaded]] before class on April 30th.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127888 Daniel Solove, ''Understanding Privacy'' (Chapter 1)]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/20 Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'' (Chapter 9)]

* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis, ''Blown to Bits'' (Chapter 2)] (focus on pages 36-42: “Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave it All Away”)

* [http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/11/01/parents-survey-coppa.html danah boyd, Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7)] (read “Solutions” through “Rules to Enable Choice About Privacy”)

* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 Johannes Köppel, The International Dimension of the SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf Hal Roberts and John Palfrey, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]

* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship]

* [http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text/futureofreputation-ch7.pdf Dan Solove, ''The Future of Reputation'' (Chapter 7)]

* [http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html Chris Soghoian, 8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight]

* [http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0610105v2.pdf Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov, Robust De-anonymization of Large Datasets (How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset) (''Arxiv'')]

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html?_r=0 Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know It (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

Daniel Solove concisely and accurately summarized the areas of consensus with regards to the definition of privacy when he stated that it encompasses, "(among other things) freedom of thought, control over one’s body, solitude in one’s home, control over personal information, freedom from surveillance, protection of one’s reputation, and protection from searches and interrogations." He also went on to point out that, “Privacy is a value so complex, so entangled in competing and contradictory dimensions, so engorged with various and distinct meanings, that I sometimes despair whether it can be usefully addressed at all.” These two statements probably best summarize where current thought on privacy is at this moment in world history. He goes on to emphasize how important privacy is, "Thus privacy is a fundamental right, essential for freedom, democracy, psychological well-being, individuality, and creativity. It is proclaimed inviolable but decried as detrimental, antisocial, and even pathological."

I see less problems with the actual definition of the core values which comprise privacy and more issues with drawing the borders of where privacy begins and ends. It can (more or less) be defined as the individual having his or her behavior, personal information and life protected from disclosure to anyone whom they wish to not share such information. One solution is to go back to the old paradigm of the good of the individual vs. the good of the collective. With this mindset, I believe there would be a constant shift towards the eroding away at individual privacy for the benefit of society, either real or perceived. Therefore, one must seek a minimal set of privacy rights which can either never be infringed upon, or can only be infringed upon after some sort of mechanism for "due process" has been put in place and followed and properly justified.

There are some who are criticizing police for their recent cordoning off and going house-to-house and searching for one of the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown Massachusetts. There are also those who believe, that while so many cameras in the city of Boston gave law enforcement an advantage in identifying the bombers, the sheer quantity of cameras allows the government too much power. I thought the crowd sourcing effort that the government used (posting pictures of who they strongly believed were involved in the bombing and then allowing the public to voluntarily come forward was an interesting and perhaps good example of a balance between privacy and security that can be struck in the future. With the popularity of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, such efforts have the potential to be very effective, although surely not without critics. Technology certainly makes the issue of privacy much more complicated. Data gathering via the internet, data mining tools and technologies, surveillance drones and public cameras all add further complications to the issue. [[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 20:22, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

****

In my wiki post two weeks ago, on April 9th, I addressed issues surrounding online privacy. I noted that everything we do today is online, and as a result, we may all be hacked at some point in time. The assigned chapter this week by Abelson et al., ''Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave It Away'', further supports my claim with additional examples and relevant quotes.

''"Technology creates opportunities and risks, and people, as individuals and as societies, decide how to live in the changed landscape of new possibilities [i.e., new technology]....We give away information about ourselves—voluntarily leave visible footprints of our daily lives—because we judge, perhaps without thinking about it very much, that the benefits outweigh the costs."''

These two statements are equally relevant for this week’s discussion. A) Technology does indeed create opportunities and risks, and we as the users primarily see things from an opportunistic perspective—quite often, we don’t contemplate the risks. B) Based on our optimism and trust in the technological advancements that surround us, we give our personal information away continuously. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the costs: we need to pay our bills online, manage our finances online, purchase products online, sign-up for services online, and the list goes on. In some circumstances—when one is hacked, for example—the costs trump the benefits; yet, we remain optimistic overall, not because we necessarily want to, but because we need to.

Privacy today impacts all walks of life. RFID technologies, credit cards, supermarket loyalty programs, and beyond, capture personal data for countless reasons. As the consumers, we not only let this happen, but we don’t have a choice, unless we choose to live in a remote reality. Abelson et al. further states that, ''"we give up data about ourselves because we don’t have the time, patience, or single-mindedness about privacy that would be required to live our daily lives in another way."'' Privacy norms will inevitably continue to evolve in-line with technological advancements, and we as the ultimate users must therefore adapt accordingly.

The final quote worth highlighting comes from Zittrain’s article: ''"It is no wonder that people have come to distrust computer-based record-keeping operations. Even in non-governmental settings, an individual’s control over the personal information that he gives to an organization, or that an organization obtains about him, is lessening as the relationship between the giver and receiver of personal data grows more attenuated, impersonal, and diffused....Often [an individual] may not see [a record about him/her], much less contest its accuracy, control its dissemination, or challenge its use by others"'' (Report from the Blue-Ribbon Panel to the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on computers and privacy).

I like this quote because it foreshadows today’s reality, from 40 years ago. Will this same reality be consistent 40 years from now? Will privacy take on new meanings as hacking becomes more prevalent? Will new industries emerge to protect online communications? How will we, as users, continue to adapt to ensure our own privacy across diverse online frontiers?

I look forward to hearing your insights! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:48, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

***
I enjoyed our readings for today’s class in regards to the Internet privacy. With information systems, in my view privacy deals with the collection of misuse of data and information within the cyber arena. More and more information of users is being collected, stored, used, and shared among ample organizations. Who owns this information and knowledge? And what is the limit of the privacy? In my view, privacy is a status wherein an individual can work on his/her information in seclusion, resulting in a selective revelation of one's identity, which can mean anonymity in case a person wants to remain unidentified. Privacy can also be related to the security aspect of an individual or information. While using the Internet, it mainly comprises the use of social networking sites, email facilities and the browse of various other websites. Internet privacy comes on the scene when it comes to website users giving out their personal details on the Internet. For certain websites, which facilitate online shopping, the users are made to input their credit card numbers, the privacy security is limited as the card numbers are being stolen and/or forwarded to the 3rd parties. In case of emailing sites, there are issues about whether third parties should be allowed to store or read emails without informed consent. Whether or not, the third parties should be permitted to track user’s information, which is viewed as another major privacy concern. The other important Internet privacy issue in my view is whether the sites that gather personally identifiable information from the users should store or share it. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:09, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
***

Reflecting upon this week's readings, the discussion on privacy seems so much bigger than a question of laws and regulations. It fully encompasses the ethics and morals of individuals and of their cultures. The current privacy situation forces a person to constantly be ready to defend their reputation. It seems to hold human behavior to a higher standard, which might not be bad. Privacy while participating in online activity seems more like part of "playing the game", however when it comes to secret surveillance or someone else taking photographic images or videos of me and disseminating those images without my consent is another story. It is like living in a glass house or a fish bowl. We've all had bad days and made mistakes, but we do not desire for those to be captured and forever worn like a scarlet letter. This is of particular concern to me, as children are growing and hopefully learning from their mistakes, not permanently labeled for them. Zittrain's chapter brought many additional thoughts to mind such as his example about "good" customers and "bad" customers in a home improvement store. This type of behavior on the part of businesses could perpetuate economic discrimination.

Striking a balance between government control and individual/ non-state actor control is important. Technological advancements often come laden with unintended consequences but that is part of innovation and progress. As the debate and discussion continue, acceptable solutions will emerge.
Question: Does COPPA or another law cover anything about photos or videos being taken of minor children (clothed, not pornographic) and disseminated online without parental consent?
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 12:20, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Privacy is a difficult topic to get legal and moral arms around. Reading the different perspectives for this week, it becomes clear that there aren't any real clear guidelines on how to approach this difficult topic. Protected by a constitutionality? Yes... enforced thoroughly? No.

I pulled up to my drive through bank machine yesterday. The three cameras there recorded my licence plate, a wide angle of my car and my face (finally noticed the small camera next to the key pad.) Was all that really necessary for me to pull 100 dollars? With the readings in mind, I started reviewing how many times I am photographed and cataloged in some obscure (to me) database. Yesterday alone was over 50 (that I know of) and I do not frequent high profile areas. I have no secret clearance or celebrity profile that could possible make these numbers justified yet in a normal course of events during my day I was like an animal that had been tagged with an ear chip for migration observation.

In the Jonathan Zittrain piece, I found the following excerpt to incapsulate the true issues of today. ...."Nowadays an individual must increasingly give information about himself to large and relatively faceless institutions, for handling and use by strangers—unknown, unseen and, all too frequently..." How do we as a society protect against that information being used in a way that we would never think of?.

As an example, here is an article on how software will be able to alert authorities to behaviour ... So don't jump for joy any more - it could be misconstrued as something else....
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/04/18/httpblogs-scientificamerican-comobservationswp-adminpost-new-phppost_typepost/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_TECH_20130423
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 15:43, 23 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

Privacy

2013-04-23T19:43:48Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 23'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s own privacy. We have a hard enough time defining the term, much less determining what role it should play in deciding the whos, whats, and hows of Internet governance. Nevertheless, the Internet’s present evolution indicates that unless we spend time contemplating the reinforcing privacy online it way succumb to the interests of profitability, online behavior regulation, cybersecurity, and law enforcement. Today’s class will set a framework for classifying privacy issues and explore how these issues play out in online spaces.

Speaking in class this week will be several members of Berkman's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/youthandmedia Youth and Media Project], as well as our own TA [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dobrien David O'Brien].

== Assignments ==

We have a granted a ''one week extension'' to the rough draft in light of last week's events. Please have those [[Assignment_4_Submissions|uploaded]] before class on April 30th.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127888 Daniel Solove, ''Understanding Privacy'' (Chapter 1)]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/20 Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'' (Chapter 9)]

* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis, ''Blown to Bits'' (Chapter 2)] (focus on pages 36-42: “Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave it All Away”)

* [http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/11/01/parents-survey-coppa.html danah boyd, Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7)] (read “Solutions” through “Rules to Enable Choice About Privacy”)

* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 Johannes Köppel, The International Dimension of the SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf Hal Roberts and John Palfrey, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]

* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship]

* [http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text/futureofreputation-ch7.pdf Dan Solove, ''The Future of Reputation'' (Chapter 7)]

* [http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html Chris Soghoian, 8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight]

* [http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0610105v2.pdf Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov, Robust De-anonymization of Large Datasets (How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset) (''Arxiv'')]

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html?_r=0 Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know It (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

Daniel Solove concisely and accurately summarized the areas of consensus with regards to the definition of privacy when he stated that it encompasses, "(among other things) freedom of thought, control over one’s body, solitude in one’s home, control over personal information, freedom from surveillance, protection of one’s reputation, and protection from searches and interrogations." He also went on to point out that, “Privacy is a value so complex, so entangled in competing and contradictory dimensions, so engorged with various and distinct meanings, that I sometimes despair whether it can be usefully addressed at all.” These two statements probably best summarize where current thought on privacy is at this moment in world history. He goes on to emphasize how important privacy is, "Thus privacy is a fundamental right, essential for freedom, democracy, psychological well-being, individuality, and creativity. It is proclaimed inviolable but decried as detrimental, antisocial, and even pathological."

I see less problems with the actual definition of the core values which comprise privacy and more issues with drawing the borders of where privacy begins and ends. It can (more or less) be defined as the individual having his or her behavior, personal information and life protected from disclosure to anyone whom they wish to not share such information. One solution is to go back to the old paradigm of the good of the individual vs. the good of the collective. With this mindset, I believe there would be a constant shift towards the eroding away at individual privacy for the benefit of society, either real or perceived. Therefore, one must seek a minimal set of privacy rights which can either never be infringed upon, or can only be infringed upon after some sort of mechanism for "due process" has been put in place and followed and properly justified.

There are some who are criticizing police for their recent cordoning off and going house-to-house and searching for one of the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown Massachusetts. There are also those who believe, that while so many cameras in the city of Boston gave law enforcement an advantage in identifying the bombers, the sheer quantity of cameras allows the government too much power. I thought the crowd sourcing effort that the government used (posting pictures of who they strongly believed were involved in the bombing and then allowing the public to voluntarily come forward was an interesting and perhaps good example of a balance between privacy and security that can be struck in the future. With the popularity of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, such efforts have the potential to be very effective, although surely not without critics. Technology certainly makes the issue of privacy much more complicated. Data gathering via the internet, data mining tools and technologies, surveillance drones and public cameras all add further complications to the issue. [[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 20:22, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

****

In my wiki post two weeks ago, on April 9th, I addressed issues surrounding online privacy. I noted that everything we do today is online, and as a result, we may all be hacked at some point in time. The assigned chapter this week by Abelson et al., ''Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave It Away'', further supports my claim with additional examples and relevant quotes.

''"Technology creates opportunities and risks, and people, as individuals and as societies, decide how to live in the changed landscape of new possibilities [i.e., new technology]....We give away information about ourselves—voluntarily leave visible footprints of our daily lives—because we judge, perhaps without thinking about it very much, that the benefits outweigh the costs."''

These two statements are equally relevant for this week’s discussion. A) Technology does indeed create opportunities and risks, and we as the users primarily see things from an opportunistic perspective—quite often, we don’t contemplate the risks. B) Based on our optimism and trust in the technological advancements that surround us, we give our personal information away continuously. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the costs: we need to pay our bills online, manage our finances online, purchase products online, sign-up for services online, and the list goes on. In some circumstances—when one is hacked, for example—the costs trump the benefits; yet, we remain optimistic overall, not because we necessarily want to, but because we need to.

Privacy today impacts all walks of life. RFID technologies, credit cards, supermarket loyalty programs, and beyond, capture personal data for countless reasons. As the consumers, we not only let this happen, but we don’t have a choice, unless we choose to live in a remote reality. Abelson et al. further states that, ''"we give up data about ourselves because we don’t have the time, patience, or single-mindedness about privacy that would be required to live our daily lives in another way."'' Privacy norms will inevitably continue to evolve in-line with technological advancements, and we as the ultimate users must therefore adapt accordingly.

The final quote worth highlighting comes from Zittrain’s article: ''"It is no wonder that people have come to distrust computer-based record-keeping operations. Even in non-governmental settings, an individual’s control over the personal information that he gives to an organization, or that an organization obtains about him, is lessening as the relationship between the giver and receiver of personal data grows more attenuated, impersonal, and diffused....Often [an individual] may not see [a record about him/her], much less contest its accuracy, control its dissemination, or challenge its use by others"'' (Report from the Blue-Ribbon Panel to the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on computers and privacy).

I like this quote because it foreshadows today’s reality, from 40 years ago. Will this same reality be consistent 40 years from now? Will privacy take on new meanings as hacking becomes more prevalent? Will new industries emerge to protect online communications? How will we, as users, continue to adapt to ensure our own privacy across diverse online frontiers?

I look forward to hearing your insights! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:48, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

***
I enjoyed our readings for today’s class in regards to the Internet privacy. With information systems, in my view privacy deals with the collection of misuse of data and information within the cyber arena. More and more information of users is being collected, stored, used, and shared among ample organizations. Who owns this information and knowledge? And what is the limit of the privacy? In my view, privacy is a status wherein an individual can work on his/her information in seclusion, resulting in a selective revelation of one's identity, which can mean anonymity in case a person wants to remain unidentified. Privacy can also be related to the security aspect of an individual or information. While using the Internet, it mainly comprises the use of social networking sites, email facilities and the browse of various other websites. Internet privacy comes on the scene when it comes to website users giving out their personal details on the Internet. For certain websites, which facilitate online shopping, the users are made to input their credit card numbers, the privacy security is limited as the card numbers are being stolen and/or forwarded to the 3rd parties. In case of emailing sites, there are issues about whether third parties should be allowed to store or read emails without informed consent. Whether or not, the third parties should be permitted to track user’s information, which is viewed as another major privacy concern. The other important Internet privacy issue in my view is whether the sites that gather personally identifiable information from the users should store or share it. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:09, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
***

Reflecting upon this week's readings, the discussion on privacy seems so much bigger than a question of laws and regulations. It fully encompasses the ethics and morals of individuals and of their cultures. The current privacy situation forces a person to constantly be ready to defend their reputation. It seems to hold human behavior to a higher standard, which might not be bad. Privacy while participating in online activity seems more like part of "playing the game", however when it comes to secret surveillance or someone else taking photographic images or videos of me and disseminating those images without my consent is another story. It is like living in a glass house or a fish bowl. We've all had bad days and made mistakes, but we do not desire for those to be captured and forever worn like a scarlet letter. This is of particular concern to me, as children are growing and hopefully learning from their mistakes, not permanently labeled for them. Zittrain's chapter brought many additional thoughts to mind such as his example about "good" customers and "bad" customers in a home improvement store. This type of behavior on the part of businesses could perpetuate economic discrimination.

Striking a balance between government control and individual/ non-state actor control is important. Technological advancements often come laden with unintended consequences but that is part of innovation and progress. As the debate and discussion continue, acceptable solutions will emerge.
Question: Does COPPA or another law cover anything about photos or videos being taken of minor children (clothed, not pornographic) and disseminated online without parental consent?
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 12:20, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Privacy is a difficult topic to get legal and moral arms around. Reading the different perspectives for this week, it becomes clear that there aren't any real clear guidelines on how to approach this difficult topic. Protected by a constitutionality? Yes... enforced thoroughly? No.

I pulled up to my drive through bank machine yesterday. The three cameras there recorded my licence plate, a wide angle of my car and my face (finally noticed the small camera next to the key pad.) Was all that really necessary for me to pull 100 dollars? With the readings in mind, I started reviewing how many times I am photographed and cataloged in some obscure (to me) database. Yesterday alone was over 50 (that I know of) and I do not frequent high profile areas. I have no secret clearance or celebrity profile that could possible make these numbers justified yet in a normal course of events during my day I was like an animal that had been tagged with an ear chip for migration observation.

In the Jonathan Zittrain piece, I found the following excerpt to incapsulate the true issues of today. ...."Nowadays an individual must increasingly give information about himself to large and relatively faceless institutions, for handling and use by strangers—unknown, unseen and, all too frequently..." How do we as a society protect against that information being used in a way that we would never think of?. [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 15:43, 23 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

Informing the Public in the Internet Age

2013-04-17T19:06:06Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 16'''

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Persephone Miel and Rob Faris, News and Information as Digital Media Come of Age] (read executive summary)

* [http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/68-2Jones.pdf RonNell Anderson Jones, Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America] (Section I only, remaining optional)

* [http://transition.fcc.gov/osp/inc-report/INoC-Executive_Summary.pdf Federal Communications Commission, Information Needs of Communities] (read executive summary, skim overview)

* [http://banyanproject.com/index.php?title=Main_Page Banyan Project, Introduction and Overview]

* [http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/111660-muckrock-city/ Chris Faraone, MuckRock City (''Boston Phoenix'')]

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/05/from-cold-calls-to-community-building-propublica-tries-to-make-crowdsourcing-more-meaningful/ Adrienne LaFrance, From Cold Calls to Community Building, ProPublica Tries to Make Crowdsourcing More Meaningful (''Nieman Journalism Lab'')]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3TRKPSmoZk Brendan Nyhan, Biases Abound] (video, watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXZAIrDI66E&playnext=1&list=PL1E8598023D37F7AC&feature=results_video Jonathan Zittrain, 2009 Richard S. Salant Lecture on Freedom of the Press] (the lecture starts at 19:45)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
===Links from Adobe Connect Session===
Explanation of Robots.txt : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard

The Berkman Center's robots.txt file: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/robots.txt

Here's a recent article about the e-mail privacy question: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0415/Supreme-Court-refuses-e-mail-privacy-case-leaving-divergent-opinions-intact

Trailer to WarGames with Matthew Broderick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAcEzhQ7oqA

Hacker Kevin Mitnick was once accused of being able to launch nuclear missiles by whistling into a phone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

Map of the various federal circuit courts: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/images/CircuitMap.pdf

Orrin Kerr at GW Law (Andy's alma mater): http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=3568

Background on the hacker Sabu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Xavier_Monsegur

One take on the Northeast Blackout of 2003: http://www.salon.com/2003/12/16/blaster_security/

The New York Times Public Editor is Margaret Sullivan. Here is her blog: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/

The front pages of major newspapers from the Newseum: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/

Man in the Cowboy Hat at Marathon: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/cowboy-hat-carlos-arredondo-boston-marathon

The news headline map: http://newsmap.jp/

== 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 tend to agree with the gist of the Miel and Faris, Berkman Report that argues there is a merging of traditional media reporting and online independent blogging. For instance, today at around 2:45 the terror attack occurred in Boston. At 3:15 I saw a notice on twitter and googled it to see what was happening. None of the first page of google links were to major media resources, they were all to minor blogs that were carrying the story which is where I got my information. So for breaking news it can be quite often a minor blogger or on facebook/twitter where a story breaks for the first time. Conversely, I've noticed a marked decline in the online stories of the traditional Canadian Newspaper sites. I often go to CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) to browse the news and I've noticed quite often that they revise their online stories continually to add a fact here and there like a blog. In doing so they often make mistakes in their haste and it seems as though their articles are of no higher quality than an independent bloggers... [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 20:59, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

****

Like everyone else, I can't stop thinking about the tragedy in Boston today. The event was particularly timely for a class about journalism, because it is a pretty telling case study about informing the public in the Internet age. Indeed you could see many of the positive and negative effects of public participation in media, as presented by the Berkman report from Persephone Miel and Robert Faris and the FCC report from Steven Waldman.

I initially heard about the explosions on Facebook from a post by a friend based in NYC who was watching a live stream of the event. Then I immediately searched online to find out more information from a reputable news source. Even though social media broke the news for me, I still needed a journalist for verification and confirmation. But the New York Times and Boston Globe only had basic, incomplete information at this point. So I jumped back over to social media, where information was readily and rapidly flowing. However, finding credible information and assembling a coherent report of what had happened turned out to be incredibly challenging. Twitter became a hot bed of misinformation (i.e. of alleged perpetrators), insensitive scheduled tweets, graphic images I wanted to avoid, general shock, speculation, retweet hoaxes, and conflicting reports. It felt like a highly visible news room flooded with all the crap that usually gets filtered out. One tweet even read, "everyone just chill for a sec until confirmed reports come in."

So right away, I could see the advantages and disadvantages of participatory media outlets and traditional news outlets. I needed professional journalists to confirm information for me, to give me an objective and authoritative source. But the news outlets moved too slow. So I turned to social media to give me updates and reactions, even if they were inaccurate. For me, any information was better than none at the time. Ultimately, I found myself glued to CNN while perusing Twitter and Facebook and texting everyone I knew. It felt as though the participatory and traditional media were working in concert with one another, satisfying different needs. Looking back now, I think there is a place for both traditional journalists and community driven-news so as long as each focuses on what they do best (news outlets: slower but accurate reports, social media: speedy but not always accurate reports) and not try to serve the function of the other. The Banyan Project seems like an interesting hybrid. Anyway, my heart goes out to the victims on this sad day. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:37, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

When I read the assignment summary/description for this week which included a reference to the alternative, citizen-led media sector and asked, "Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed?", my instinct was to answer with the one word: both. And when I say "both", I mean that what we are seeing happen with media as a whole is the inclusion of enthusiastic amateurs as well as a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are contained. One only needs to look at the number of direct references in the so-called mainstream, traditional media to social networking. The initial coverage of yesterday's bombing of the Boston Marathon including repeated use of amateur (presumably cell phone) video and still shots by the mainstream media as well as repeating twitter posts. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that as the old, traditional media begins to enjoy less consumption (Newsweek gave up its print edition this last December and long gone are the days of the three main news media TV channels - ABC, CBS and NBC, who have all lost their share of the market to the likes of CNN, FOX, MSNBC and online sources) while relatively new media (or at least new compared to the traditional sources) such as Drudge, Huffington Post and any of the millions of bloggers continue to enjoy large and in some cases constantly increasing shares of the market. As the Miel and Faris article states, "The distinctions between professional and amateur are blurring, and the definitions of commercial, public, and community media are shifting." It's no longer one or the other, but how much of each component does anyone news/media source choose to use in order to attract information consumers. I would even throw the spectrum of hard news versus opinion in there. I also think the Miel and Faris article summarized it well when they said: "Understanding these trends requires a broader and more holistic view of the media environment than isolating new or
participatory media, terms that are losing value as meaningful distinctions."

The Jones article stated that, "Scholars and commentators have been closely monitoring this decline for several years, and much has been written about the ways in which the demise of traditional mainstream media might negatively impact the flow of information to the public, and ultimately undermine the strength of our democracy." I disagree. Information consumers must simply learn to adjust their understanding of the sources of the information they receive. It is absolutely essential to be critical of every source of information and attempt to analyze it objectively and without personal bias if the truth is ultimately the goal. It's not as if the traditional print media was immune to bias or inaccuracies. Facts are obviously of value. Opinions are also of value if they are viewed as such. The internet and "citizen journalists", bloggers and individual producers of information have value in that they bring all of these to the table and therefore it becomes critically important to discern what they have to offer before properly consuming it. The most important (and critical to democracy) things that can happen is to be able to draw a distinction between hard news (i.e. what happened) and opinion/editorial pieces. Very often today we have people wearing two hats - they are both consumers as well as producers. And sometimes one effects the other.[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 09:42, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

****

One cannot deny the influence of mass media in all walks of life. Whether we examine the domestic or international political landscape, consumer trends, economic development, social change, celebrity gossip, humanitarian disasters, or anything else in our modern surroundings, media shapes our thoughts and actions. Our readings and the video this week draw attention to our current media world: ''everyone is a reporter, an author, and an editor.''

A few months ago, I read an interesting political science article by Matthew Baum titled: ''Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public.'' Soft news is defined as entertainment-oriented news, much of what we see on late night T.V. Baum sheds light on an important aspect of news interpretation and analysis, highlighting education as the nucleus. He notes that soft news diminishes as respondents move up the education ladder. In other words, as people become more educated, they consider preferences, question validity, and make decisions based on a broader universe of options when presented with new data (they don’t believe everything they read, hear, or watch). Brendan Nyhan's video about fact-checking is somewhat associated with this logic. I’m not implying that those with lower educational levels believe everything they hear and avoid checking facts; nor am I saying that highly educated individuals cannot be influenced by the subtle nuances of mass media. If false claims are repeated enough, noted in Nyhan's video, people will tend to believe those claims, whether educated or not. I do think, however, that examining media-interpretation from an educational slant is an interesting way to approach this analysis. Does education increase motivation to confirm facts? Does education change one's interpretation when obtaining news from social media or other news outlets? What are your thoughts about the role of education in our high-choice media environment?

Primary news and social media news are two distinct information-generating avenues. When evaluating primary news sources, information about the world often comes from "political elites," i.e., those who own and manage large entities that provide news. Although the primary networks (NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/FOX) provide more clear-cut data than other news sources or entertainment equivalents, we obtain information through filters, making us secondhand consumers. The telephone game is not necessarily the best analogy, because information can often be presented consistently, across media platforms. However, to some degree, all information about the world is slightly skewed, based on the translator who shares the information and the number of touch-points the information travels through before we receive it. This is the reality of traditional primary news.

On the other hand, social media news is very different, because it's not automatically filtered through the eyes of "elites"—the information we obtain often comes from a direct source. In the article ''From Cold Calls to Community Building'', an interesting quote merits attention: ''"Social media creates a new layer of vulnerability for a reporter compared with what we do traditionally, which is less personal....Trust is a huge issue, especially when you think about [it] on a sourcing level. A lot of people aren't going to trust a reporter they don't know or a publication they don’t know....[P]eople are much more willing to trust each other"'' (LaFrance, 2012). We trust others alike and those who have direct experiences with a topic of interest; this is the change that we’re seeing with social media. We're moving from a ''filtered news-generating'' world, to a ''streamlined information-gathering reality'', i.e., those closest to the news who are impacted the most (the real reporters) provide the best information.

Miel and Faris support this claim stating that, ''"members of this growing audience [i.e., the Internet] are not only consumers of the news—many are shaping the news agenda for themselves and others: selecting, combining, and commenting on stories as well as creating their own. It is driven by the rapid expansion of the number of people and organizations newly engaged as authors, editors, and publishers"'' (Miel and Faris, 2008). The final statement of this quote illustrates an important aspect of this week's thesis. We are all reporters and through social media avenues we now have the potential to share our stories surrounding countless topics, to mass audiences.

What do you think about this transition? Will we lack factual information as more non-experts transmit news? Or, will news be better-off as information emerges from diverse sources, across unique platforms, from unfiltered perspectives? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 10:35, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

****
Interesting readings for this class, and in particular the Miel and Faris article. I would tend to agree with our classmate, Joshywonder that noted that future of news would rely upon new major media resources as twitter, Facebook or diverse blogs. I myself, heard about Boston attack thought-out the posts and comments of those social media arenas. Members as myself tend to rely on consumers of the news that “identify areas where core journalists functions in a democracy” which make a potential thread of a new environment of a networked digital media. In my view, sources like Twitter and Facebook give audience a chance to be involved (by commenting, posting/ liking) in operation of what is happening in a series of tweets of information. In my view, this exchange of information raises the social medial in a gathered emergence of new ecosystems. Diverse organizations are being more hostile towards theses new tools of information. In my view, audience is being more inclined to see comments on Facebook and posts by twitter and other forms of social media as valuable adjunct to traditional media. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:38, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

***
It was good to see that this week’s readings touched on issues that are fundamental to good public policy: a strong press, and a public education system that trains a country’s people in, as Jonathan Zitrain put it “ The sets of skills that comprise the western enlightenment”. (1:02:17 to 1:02:34) If newspapers are written above the average level of the high school graduate in a community, it’s not hard to understand why they are not being widely read. However, if the average high school graduate is reading at a 6th grade level, the quality of the press for that city is not going to be high if it is not geared to (as the Banyan Project website puts it) the upscale and elite. Finally the point that FOIA requests and much of the abuses of local and national governments are dependent on investigative journalism and the deep pockets of the organizations that employ them (Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America) is important, but what is also important is a populace who can understand the issues raised in such a story. If the majority of a country’s citizens cannot read and think critically, these stories will be of little use or interest to any other than the upscale. It would also be helpful if the majority of the population were familiar with our type of government (a republic) and the documents it is based upon (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers.) [[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:19, 16 April 2013 (EDT)
***

Our classes eerily coincide with national news. Through the lens of yesterday's tragedy, these articles have made me consider how both emotional investment and the means through which information is generated influence fact. Brendan Nyhan discusses several psychological factors that determine how individuals delegate truth. For instance, the "Illusion of Truth" phenomena, in which individuals construct truth based upon familiar narratives, particularly resonated with me. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon, threads of suspicion emerged, including accusations against a "darker-skinned or black male" with "a possible foreign accent." Despite the lack of evidence necessary to suspect anyone, the most news-making terrorists to attack America share aesthetic characteristics with this "darker-skinned or black male" with a "possible foreign accent." In the case of the Boston Marathon tragedy, where much uncertainty still remains, we attempt to apply the truth of the past, which foolishly promotes blindness to and over-simplification of our truly ignorant present circumstances. In tandem with our collective social-historical structures, social media and technology enable us to seek and create truth ourselves. Every Facebook status is an op-ed, and every mobile upload is proof. Everyone is a journalist now, yet without the requirement to comply to journalistic principles. Personal blogs may feature publicly meaningful information couched within an author's bias and lack of fact-checking. While the influx of social media reporting allows readers to seeks information from a spectrum of sources,inaccuracy and personal context may taint these writings, and distract from mainstream news outlets (occasional) adherence to journalistic principles. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 14:57, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

The readings were interesting but I really enjoyed the lecture by Brendan Nyhan. The biases that exist in today's media is remarkable. No matter what the topic the way the news is reported can influence elections, business transactions, and really everything in our world. These biases and misinformation are crippling without the financial resources to challenge the media flawed content. This allows for much of the momentum and influence to come from the weight of these misstatements and the ability for those who challenge or fight the misinformation to effectively eliminate the inadequacies of the information. An example of this would be if there was a witness who saw a middle eastern man near where the explosion occurred in Boston and then the media attacked the story that this attack was terror related from an Islamic extremist , the media could start to engage in these biases to influence a reaction when in fact there is nothing to substantiate these claims. So it is very interesting on how the media could shape the world with misinformation[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 15:56, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

In reading Cold Calls to Community Building, it did strike me that the crowdsourcing premise is not all that different than the public squares, speak easies, water coolers, or any other of the gathering spots that humans go to connect and be heard .... but having said that, the technology surely makes it faster! It seems that with fast we have given away accuracy - and I suggest that we need to bring back sober second thought that allows facts to be sifted away from fiction and where journalism really is a craft not just a series of conversations.
It's with that it mind that we should read through information. Who, what, where and why are the foundation of a good journalistic piece --- opinion is just that -- and further slanted through the prism of the writer.
Looking for sources to augment the subject in a writing piece is long and often gruelling work - social media allows for an instant community on the topic in which you are researching - but the craft of journalism has been diluted down to sound bites and 140 characters on a Twitter feed doesn't help that.
We crave accuracy but for some reason are no longer willing to play the long game in achieving it -- so we get what we knee jerk towards which is the quick hit.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 16:14, 16 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

I remember the mocking of the USA Today format as info-tainment due to their colorful information graphics and short, bottom line up front text. Now, those critics are eating their words as the internet swallows up their 20th century hard copy newspapers. This is a positive development for sorting through news, as a consumer may now use companies such as Google to sort through global news sources on every topic. Now, instead of a long meandering article, style moves more toward a strong image or graphic, a strong source of information, and brevity of the point before the consumer moves on. The main providers of news having moved online has given gravitas to online reporting. Now, the old journalistic sources mix it up with start-up online news services. Ultimately, journalists fight for control of opinions while selling advertising. The journalists also need to receive clicks and kudos to increase their reputation in a shrinking job environment, competing against journalists who provide news for free.
Paper newspapers and magazines will continue to decline relative to the access of digital readers that allow for ease of use for those less technologically savvy. As smart phones get larger and easier to read and use, and cheaper, at one point most people on the planet will have access to a computer with internet access each day. This will force paper based news further into oblivion. However, if locals and national outlets for news continue to provide entertaining and relevant news with advertisers who wish to dominate a smaller market, the lifespan of the hard copy newspaper will outlast even their most ardent critics of the current time. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 17:46, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

After last nights class thought I would share this article that came out today:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/04/social-media-and-the-boston-bombings-when-citizens-and-journalists-cover-the-same-story/
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 15:06, 17 April 2013 (EDT) Caroline

Informing the Public in the Internet Age

2013-04-16T20:14:47Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 16'''

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Persephone Miel and Rob Faris, News and Information as Digital Media Come of Age] (read executive summary)

* [http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/68-2Jones.pdf RonNell Anderson Jones, Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America] (Section I only, remaining optional)

* [http://transition.fcc.gov/osp/inc-report/INoC-Executive_Summary.pdf Federal Communications Commission, Information Needs of Communities] (read executive summary, skim overview)

* [http://banyanproject.com/index.php?title=Main_Page Banyan Project, Introduction and Overview]

* [http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/111660-muckrock-city/ Chris Faraone, MuckRock City (''Boston Phoenix'')]

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/05/from-cold-calls-to-community-building-propublica-tries-to-make-crowdsourcing-more-meaningful/ Adrienne LaFrance, From Cold Calls to Community Building, ProPublica Tries to Make Crowdsourcing More Meaningful (''Nieman Journalism Lab'')]

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3TRKPSmoZk Brendan Nyhan, Biases Abound] (video, watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXZAIrDI66E&playnext=1&list=PL1E8598023D37F7AC&feature=results_video Jonathan Zittrain, 2009 Richard S. Salant Lecture on Freedom of the Press] (the lecture starts at 19:45)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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 tend to agree with the gist of the Miel and Faris, Berkman Report that argues there is a merging of traditional media reporting and online independent blogging. For instance, today at around 2:45 the terror attack occurred in Boston. At 3:15 I saw a notice on twitter and googled it to see what was happening. None of the first page of google links were to major media resources, they were all to minor blogs that were carrying the story which is where I got my information. So for breaking news it can be quite often a minor blogger or on facebook/twitter where a story breaks for the first time. Conversely, I've noticed a marked decline in the online stories of the traditional Canadian Newspaper sites. I often go to CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) to browse the news and I've noticed quite often that they revise their online stories continually to add a fact here and there like a blog. In doing so they often make mistakes in their haste and it seems as though their articles are of no higher quality than an independent bloggers... [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 20:59, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

****

Like everyone else, I can't stop thinking about the tragedy in Boston today. The event was particularly timely for a class about journalism, because it is a pretty telling case study about informing the public in the Internet age. Indeed you could see many of the positive and negative effects of public participation in media, as presented by the Berkman report from Persephone Miel and Robert Faris and the FCC report from Steven Waldman.

I initially heard about the explosions on Facebook from a post by a friend based in NYC who was watching a live stream of the event. Then I immediately searched online to find out more information from a reputable news source. Even though social media broke the news for me, I still needed a journalist for verification and confirmation. But the New York Times and Boston Globe only had basic, incomplete information at this point. So I jumped back over to social media, where information was readily and rapidly flowing. However, finding credible information and assembling a coherent report of what had happened turned out to be incredibly challenging. Twitter became a hot bed of misinformation (i.e. of alleged perpetrators), insensitive scheduled tweets, graphic images I wanted to avoid, general shock, speculation, retweet hoaxes, and conflicting reports. It felt like a highly visible news room flooded with all the crap that usually gets filtered out. One tweet even read, "everyone just chill for a sec until confirmed reports come in."

So right away, I could see the advantages and disadvantages of participatory media outlets and traditional news outlets. I needed professional journalists to confirm information for me, to give me an objective and authoritative source. But the news outlets moved too slow. So I turned to social media to give me updates and reactions, even if they were inaccurate. For me, any information was better than none at the time. Ultimately, I found myself glued to CNN while perusing Twitter and Facebook and texting everyone I knew. It felt as though the participatory and traditional media were working in concert with one another, satisfying different needs. Looking back now, I think there is a place for both traditional journalists and community driven-news so as long as each focuses on what they do best (news outlets: slower but accurate reports, social media: speedy but not always accurate reports) and not try to serve the function of the other. The Banyan Project seems like an interesting hybrid. Anyway, my heart goes out to the victims on this sad day. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:37, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

When I read the assignment summary/description for this week which included a reference to the alternative, citizen-led media sector and asked, "Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed?", my instinct was to answer with the one word: both. And when I say "both", I mean that what we are seeing happen with media as a whole is the inclusion of enthusiastic amateurs as well as a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are contained. One only needs to look at the number of direct references in the so-called mainstream, traditional media to social networking. The initial coverage of yesterday's bombing of the Boston Marathon including repeated use of amateur (presumably cell phone) video and still shots by the mainstream media as well as repeating twitter posts. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that as the old, traditional media begins to enjoy less consumption (Newsweek gave up its print edition this last December and long gone are the days of the three main news media TV channels - ABC, CBS and NBC, who have all lost their share of the market to the likes of CNN, FOX, MSNBC and online sources) while relatively new media (or at least new compared to the traditional sources) such as Drudge, Huffington Post and any of the millions of bloggers continue to enjoy large and in some cases constantly increasing shares of the market. As the Miel and Faris article states, "The distinctions between professional and amateur are blurring, and the definitions of commercial, public, and community media are shifting." It's no longer one or the other, but how much of each component does anyone news/media source choose to use in order to attract information consumers. I would even throw the spectrum of hard news versus opinion in there. I also think the Miel and Faris article summarized it well when they said: "Understanding these trends requires a broader and more holistic view of the media environment than isolating new or
participatory media, terms that are losing value as meaningful distinctions."

The Jones article stated that, "Scholars and commentators have been closely monitoring this decline for several years, and much has been written about the ways in which the demise of traditional mainstream media might negatively impact the flow of information to the public, and ultimately undermine the strength of our democracy." I disagree. Information consumers must simply learn to adjust their understanding of the sources of the information they receive. It is absolutely essential to be critical of every source of information and attempt to analyze it objectively and without personal bias if the truth is ultimately the goal. It's not as if the traditional print media was immune to bias or inaccuracies. Facts are obviously of value. Opinions are also of value if they are viewed as such. The internet and "citizen journalists", bloggers and individual producers of information have value in that they bring all of these to the table and therefore it becomes critically important to discern what they have to offer before properly consuming it. The most important (and critical to democracy) things that can happen is to be able to draw a distinction between hard news (i.e. what happened) and opinion/editorial pieces. Very often today we have people wearing two hats - they are both consumers as well as producers. And sometimes one effects the other.[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 09:42, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

****

One cannot deny the influence of mass media in all walks of life. Whether we examine the domestic or international political landscape, consumer trends, economic development, social change, celebrity gossip, humanitarian disasters, or anything else in our modern surroundings, media shapes our thoughts and actions. Our readings and the video this week draw attention to our current media world: ''everyone is a reporter, an author, and an editor.''

A few months ago, I read an interesting political science article by Matthew Baum titled: ''Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public.'' Soft news is defined as entertainment-oriented news, much of what we see on late night T.V. Baum sheds light on an important aspect of news interpretation and analysis, highlighting education as the nucleus. He notes that soft news diminishes as respondents move up the education ladder. In other words, as people become more educated, they consider preferences, question validity, and make decisions based on a broader universe of options when presented with new data (they don’t believe everything they read, hear, or watch). Brendan Nyhan's video about fact-checking is somewhat associated with this logic. I’m not implying that those with lower educational levels believe everything they hear and avoid checking facts; nor am I saying that highly educated individuals cannot be influenced by the subtle nuances of mass media. If false claims are repeated enough, noted in Nyhan's video, people will tend to believe those claims, whether educated or not. I do think, however, that examining media-interpretation from an educational slant is an interesting way to approach this analysis. Does education increase motivation to confirm facts? Does education change one's interpretation when obtaining news from social media or other news outlets? What are your thoughts about the role of education in our high-choice media environment?

Primary news and social media news are two distinct information-generating avenues. When evaluating primary news sources, information about the world often comes from "political elites," i.e., those who own and manage large entities that provide news. Although the primary networks (NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/FOX) provide more clear-cut data than other news sources or entertainment equivalents, we obtain information through filters, making us secondhand consumers. The telephone game is not necessarily the best analogy, because information can often be presented consistently, across media platforms. However, to some degree, all information about the world is slightly skewed, based on the translator who shares the information and the number of touch-points the information travels through before we receive it. This is the reality of traditional primary news.

On the other hand, social media news is very different, because it's not automatically filtered through the eyes of "elites"—the information we obtain often comes from a direct source. In the article ''From Cold Calls to Community Building'', an interesting quote merits attention: ''"Social media creates a new layer of vulnerability for a reporter compared with what we do traditionally, which is less personal....Trust is a huge issue, especially when you think about [it] on a sourcing level. A lot of people aren't going to trust a reporter they don't know or a publication they don’t know....[P]eople are much more willing to trust each other"'' (LaFrance, 2012). We trust others alike and those who have direct experiences with a topic of interest; this is the change that we’re seeing with social media. We're moving from a ''filtered news-generating'' world, to a ''streamlined information-gathering reality'', i.e., those closest to the news who are impacted the most (the real reporters) provide the best information.

Miel and Faris support this claim stating that, ''"members of this growing audience [i.e., the Internet] are not only consumers of the news—many are shaping the news agenda for themselves and others: selecting, combining, and commenting on stories as well as creating their own. It is driven by the rapid expansion of the number of people and organizations newly engaged as authors, editors, and publishers"'' (Miel and Faris, 2008). The final statement of this quote illustrates an important aspect of this week's thesis. We are all reporters and through social media avenues we now have the potential to share our stories surrounding countless topics, to mass audiences.

What do you think about this transition? Will we lack factual information as more non-experts transmit news? Or, will news be better-off as information emerges from diverse sources, across unique platforms, from unfiltered perspectives? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 10:35, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

****
Interesting readings for this class, and in particular the Miel and Faris article. I would tend to agree with our classmate, Joshywonder that noted that future of news would rely upon new major media resources as twitter, Facebook or diverse blogs. I myself, heard about Boston attack thought-out the posts and comments of those social media arenas. Members as myself tend to rely on consumers of the news that “identify areas where core journalists functions in a democracy” which make a potential thread of a new environment of a networked digital media. In my view, sources like Twitter and Facebook give audience a chance to be involved (by commenting, posting/ liking) in operation of what is happening in a series of tweets of information. In my view, this exchange of information raises the social medial in a gathered emergence of new ecosystems. Diverse organizations are being more hostile towards theses new tools of information. In my view, audience is being more inclined to see comments on Facebook and posts by twitter and other forms of social media as valuable adjunct to traditional media. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:38, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

***
It was good to see that this week’s readings touched on issues that are fundamental to good public policy: a strong press, and a public education system that trains a country’s people in, as Jonathan Zitrain put it “ The sets of skills that comprise the western enlightenment”. (1:02:17 to 1:02:34) If newspapers are written above the average level of the high school graduate in a community, it’s not hard to understand why they are not being widely read. However, if the average high school graduate is reading at a 6th grade level, the quality of the press for that city is not going to be high if it is not geared to (as the Banyan Project website puts it) the upscale and elite. Finally the point that FOIA requests and much of the abuses of local and national governments are dependent on investigative journalism and the deep pockets of the organizations that employ them (Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America) is important, but what is also important is a populace who can understand the issues raised in such a story. If the majority of a country’s citizens cannot read and think critically, these stories will be of little use or interest to any other than the upscale. It would also be helpful if the majority of the population were familiar with our type of government (a republic) and the documents it is based upon (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers.) [[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:19, 16 April 2013 (EDT)
***

Our classes eerily coincide with national news. Through the lens of yesterday's tragedy, these articles have made me consider how both emotional investment and the means through which information is generated influence fact. Brendan Nyhan discusses several psychological factors that determine how individuals delegate truth. For instance, the "Illusion of Truth" phenomena, in which individuals construct truth based upon familiar narratives, particularly resonated with me. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon, threads of suspicion emerged, including accusations against a "darker-skinned or black male" with "a possible foreign accent." Despite the lack of evidence necessary to suspect anyone, the most news-making terrorists to attack America share aesthetic characteristics with this "darker-skinned or black male" with a "possible foreign accent." In the case of the Boston Marathon tragedy, where much uncertainty still remains, we attempt to apply the truth of the past, which foolishly promotes blindness to and over-simplification of our truly ignorant present circumstances. In tandem with our collective social-historical structures, social media and technology enable us to seek and create truth ourselves. Every Facebook status is an op-ed, and every mobile upload is proof. Everyone is a journalist now, yet without the requirement to comply to journalistic principles. Personal blogs may feature publicly meaningful information couched within an author's bias and lack of fact-checking. While the influx of social media reporting allows readers to seeks information from a spectrum of sources,inaccuracy and personal context may taint these writings, and distract from mainstream news outlets (occasional) adherence to journalistic principles. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 14:57, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

The readings were interesting but I really enjoyed the lecture by Brendan Nyhan. The biases that exist in today's media is remarkable. No matter what the topic the way the news is reported can influence elections, business transactions, and really everything in our world. These biases and misinformation are crippling without the financial resources to challenge the media flawed content. This allows for much of the momentum and influence to come from the weight of these misstatements and the ability for those who challenge or fight the misinformation to effectively eliminate the inadequacies of the information. An example of this would be if there was a witness who saw a middle eastern man near where the explosion occurred in Boston and then the media attacked the story that this attack was terror related from an Islamic extremist , the media could start to engage in these biases to influence a reaction when in fact there is nothing to substantiate these claims. So it is very interesting on how the media could shape the world with misinformation[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 15:56, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

In reading Cold Calls to Community Building, it did strike me that the crowdsourcing premise is not all that different than the public squares, speak easies, water coolers, or any other of the gathering spots that humans go to connect and be heard .... but having said that, the technology surely makes it faster! It seems that with fast we have given away accuracy - and I suggest that we need to bring back sober second thought that allows facts to be sifted away from fiction and where journalism really is a craft not just a series of conversations.
It's with that it mind that we should read through information. Who, what, where and why are the foundation of a good journalistic piece --- opinion is just that -- and further slanted through the prism of the writer.
Looking for sources to augment the subject in a writing piece is long and often gruelling work - social media allows for an instant community on the topic in which you are researching - but the craft of journalism has been diluted down to sound bites and 140 characters on a Twitter feed doesn't help that.
We crave accuracy but for some reason are no longer willing to play the long game in achieving it -- so we get what we knee jerk towards which is the quick hit.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 16:14, 16 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-09T21:15:23Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 9'''

Spend five minutes with anyone who studies “hackers” and you will quickly learn that the term is used to define a wide array of discrete subcultures, from homebrew computer programmers all the way through to military-industrial network vulnerability experts. If there is one unifying characteristic amongst all of these cultures (and there may not be), it is most likely the acknowledgement between these groups that the limitations imposed by code as a mode of regulating behavior can, and should, be subverted. Today we look to hackers, who they are, what they do, and what rules and norms govern those who do not recognize code as a governing influence.

Our guest speaker this week will be [http://civic.mit.edu/users/msauter Molly Sauter], a student at MIT's Comparative Media Studies program and researcher at MIT's Center for Civic Media, who has written and spoken extensively about cultural perception of hackers.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://gabriellacoleman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Coleman-Phreaks-Hackers-Trolls.pdf Gabriella Coleman, Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls: The Politics of Transgression and Spectacle (from ''The Social Media Reader'')]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]

* [http://vimeo.com/46450688 Molly Sauter, Activist DDOS Campaigns: When Similes and Metaphors Fail] (video, watch from to 1:56 to 21:44)

:* Sauter uses the term "DDoS" throughout. This is an abbreviation for "distributed denial of service," a specific form of attack to a web server described in more detail [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDos#Distributed_attack here].

* [http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes] (read pages 1-11: Introduction to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Key Definitions)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sundevil Wikipedia, Operation Sundevil]

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-surrounding-zero-day-exploits-industry-spurs-calls-for-government-oversight/2012/09/01/46d664a6-edf7-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html James Ball, Secrecy Surrounding “Zero-Day Exploits” Industry Spurs Calls for Government Oversight]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: "The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated"] (an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford-Style_debate#Oxford-Style_debate Oxford-style debate] with Marc Rotenberg, Bruce Schneier, Mike McConnell, and Jonathan Zittrain; watch the video of the debate)

* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]

* [https://soundcloud.com/bwalker/doing-it-for-the-lulz Benjamen Walker, Doing it for the LULZ (from ''Too Much Information'')] (11:00 to 22:45 only, language at times is NSFW)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?_r=0 Nicole Perlroth, Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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 particularly interested in this week's reading: United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes it was interesting to see the amount of amendments as the years went by that the federal government attempted to control the internet behaviors of the public. This reading relates closely with my topic for my final paper of the governments control on a macro level in contrast to my paper which exams a small micro community that the federal government is attempting to control. In the readings it appears as if the government reacts in the way of a bell shape curve. Initially they are reactive in nature to something that they are late in response to, then they build up the momentum with legislation, then they continue to amend this legislation to be more and more restrictive until overregulation takes place. The federal government should look into addressing this method of over regulation for it does not protect the public from hackers or those that intend to do wrong, as much as it hurts the freedoms of the public citizens. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 10:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Computer Hacking! Whether done for national intelligence reasons, protesting for civil rights, or simply causing disarray, hacking is now a common reality. The articles and video this week shed light on various hacking attributes. For this post, I’d like to address two: ''the relationship between hacking and activism (hacktivism), and identify theft.''

As noted in Molly Sauter’s presentation, a primary goal of hacking is to attract media coverage that reveals the identity of those participating in a given action. This concept is an interesting one to consider from a retrospective viewpoint: before the Internet, how did information about public officials or public entities leak in the same manner? Did the same amount of information spill? Or, was there a much greater sense of privacy throughout industries, the government, and civil life? Mass media is a powerful mechanism that can "change the word" overnight, but how can we examine the interplay between the Internet and media? From one perspective, they are the same: messages spread quickly to large audiences across both avenues. From another perspective, the Internet acts as a stimulus that shapes media coverage. In other words, it's the first stepping-stone that turns privacy into publicity, which can begin through hacking.

As defined on the Wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism], ''"Hacktivism is the use of computers and computer networks to promote political ends, chiefly free speech, human rights, and information ethics."'' One important characteristic to consider with hacktivism, however, is "perspective." It’s all about one’s perspective surrounding a given "hacktivist's act:" those who believe they are simply exercising their freedom of speech may inevitably be committing felonies that destroy other people's identity or an organizations' operations. Hacking Iran's nuclear system is much different than hacking someone's bank account, but at the same time they're both deceitful, correct? When we think about activism, we think "good:" activists fight toward a common cause to create positive change in society (most commonly). When we think about hacktivism, however, ''good'' is not always the first thing that comes to mind. What do you think about the interplay with these two words? Can they mean the same thing or are they always different?

The second point I’d like to address is "privacy." When examining confidentiality today, I often ask myself what is truly private online? The article about China infiltrating the New York Times, or the reference about hacking Sarah Pallin's personal information illustrates that none of us are truly safe from being hacked. Emails are not private; Facebook is not private; and to certain extent, passwords are not private. With this in mind, how can we protect ourselves from identity theft? How can we create passwords that are impossible to hack? How can we protect our online identity (i.e., our real-world identity)? As we all file our 2012 taxes, for example, consider IRS refund fraud....Citizens with no IT background are able to earn tens of thousands of dollars through online hacking; and the majority are never caught. Are these types of hackers also hacktivists, because their united behind a common cause? What defines a hacker vs. a hacktivist? Why is it OK to invade one person’s or organization’s privacy, but not another’s? Is it OK when the vast majority disagree with a person's viewpoint, or a country's ideals, or a company's mission? Or, is hacking always wrong?

I've asked a lot of questions in this post, because hacking in another complex topic to dissect. Many of us "live online," and for that reason I question what will happen in the near- and long-term as our day-to-day lives become even more virtual. No matter how vigilant we are, no matter how many times we change our password, and no matter how many password characters we use, we may all, eventually, be hacked! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:28, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Having been a student, practitioner as a criminal and Constitutional lawyer, a teacher, a journalism and most importantly an observer of government and political behavior along with these touching subjects of invasion of privacy, free speech, independence, communication, and what should be a global effort at cooperation for the advancement of the entire society, for over 50 years *yee gads, I must be old) I have seen government in action, in inaction and pretending it is in action. The latter is the rule, not the exception. Our elected officials and the real powers behind the throne, non-elected officials and lobbyists create a proverbial chicken coup run by the fox. The top echelon of elected officials are figureheads who revel in their fame, power and fortune, Whether it be going through the motions at airport security, or passing insignificant laws that are more bark than bite that they expertly market to create the impression of having meat behind them they exist in their ivory towers. The problem in this country particularly is that most of us are fat cats living a lifestyle greater than an society before and really do not want to upset the real status quo. So they sit back for the most part and not rock the boat. The Dutch 350 years ago could not care if Holland or England was in power, so long as they were left alone to do their business. In Sicily where my ancestors lived the so-called "Mafia" operated in a way much like the American Dutch, but of course in a much more violent and way to control others. Sicily has been "governed" due to its strategic location along the first major trade routes by virtually every seagoing power of the last two millenniums, but early in the 2nd A.D. the Mafia was formed and since until recent attacks by the government as their power lessened has existed as the real governing body.

What does this all have to do with the Internet and government control. I will tell you, it is a similar scenario, a similar mathematical formula in which the power is in the people, but until the people stop being conned they will never take it. Now, I am not and hope I do not sound like a Communist by our principals claims that we are a country, "By and for the People," and our only hope and salvation as a society is to wake up and become active participants and uncover the charades we are subject to by those we elect who under the color of authority are paper pushers.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 12:24, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

In my view, major corporations and government security departments have acknowledged that hacker break-ins are out of control within the Internet arena. Some companies are too fearful to join networks due to diverse software programs that could develop ample growing problems. Computer security in our days, is portrayed within usage of difficult passcode, however, is it enough? Hackers seem to carry the responsibility of security break-in, however are they truly liable for company’s loss? As clients demand security of their assets, the vulnerability of security breach highlights that it could not be protected eternally. Ample amount of money is spent on protecting devices that target the hackers, however do these systems support this protection, and why it is still an issue? With the advent of modern law, the characteristics of this issue seem to lack a common ground, which hackers and diverse security programs rely upon. And what are the rights of the government to seize documents and computer ware in case of the hacking incident? The responsibilities of system operators seem to be quite inadequate in comparison to a “true” right for protection. Current law acknowledges that a new threat is emerging where computer “criminals” would potentially be capable of industrial espionage and damaging infrastructures. How could the current law be altered or improved upon these various hacking frameworks? And what would be considered a freedom of information in this matter? How could the unauthorized theft be the primary focus of diverse corporation? And how vulnerability of various security measures could prevent drastic corporate or governmental invasions?
[[User:User777|user777]] 12:46, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Rules that the Supreme Court regarding writing computer code and whether it is protected under a free speech clause is interesting, but I believe for the most part addressed under the Department of Justice Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which deliniates in detail the federal crimes that an individual or group may commit, for example, by performing acts of trespassing on other peoples' or organizations computers by "exceeding authorized access" and taking National Security information. In my mind, if and individual or group is proven to show that they create a mechanical device for the purpose of terrorism, accessing National Security information, or in anyway creating code to exceed access for a non-authorized user, that is very obviously a federal crime. When one wishes to create that which defends such information protected by National Security acts, then that group or individual can do it in an authorized area with an authorized group, such as the military or a government authorized facility. It is difficult to overemphasize how seriously the US and other governments take hacking. Mostly it is viewed as organized crime at the lowest level if it does not cross international borders, terrorism if it does. One has to bring up humorously the movie Hackers with Angelina Jolie. Even though it is over 20 years old, it most accurately describes what is happening today in a prophetic manner. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 15:58, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Discussion: Last week I succeeded at programming the wiki to not include my name when I signed it, as required; this week I have a discussion about radicalism and hackers and the knowledge of a cat. So in reviewing the substance of this assignment I have realized that the understanding on the wall of this page is the problem not the other way around. Therefore this is not the conclusion,. A bit of haste will make anyone impuctual as I have just demonstrate. Now I will discuss the necessity for review: Jonathan Zittrian is not a type of ready made rice snack in the grocer aisle or the Webster of deconstructivist lexicography, and memory loss, he was pretending to be Dave Navarro not Jimmy Fallon. I have a cat named Nipper, she loved the lecture about internet attacks. If anyone of you think this is Wall Street, think again! This is how my cat thinks. So I guess that the problem is not the computer, but, merely the author of the program and this association is FALSE. So basically, I am hot and ready for a frozen pizza but I cannot remember the brand. I guess my computer has a memory problem. That is my goal as I continue on the last assignment (which I received a 1 on, if people missed that comment [last week]).[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****
These articles were absolutely fascinating! I was particularly intrigued by the "Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls" chapter, especially the theatrical aspect of modern internet hacking. While hackers were once limited to the 256 character options of ASCII text available on usenet and .alt boards, modern multimedia possibilities can arouse more shock value, such as the flying phallus prank in Second Life. However, disguised behind elaborate digital costumes, the authentic human voice and political intention is lost. Not only has the increasing unhuman-ness of internet technology impacted the real-life, humanitarian aims of hackers, but also as Gabriella Coleman articulates, "Aesthetic hyperbole has made it difficult to parse out truth from lie," resulting in "cultural obfuscation." She later asserts that many breeds of hackers use the internet as a stage to parody real life. This strategy often seems at odds with producing legitimate social change or reformation of systems that hackers attack. For instance, trolls who employ racist and sexist language to mock and exploit chauvinistic real world structures are generally met with three types of responses. 1. They are flamed, criticized, or exiled for their behavior. 2. Their behavior approves of others to express similarly bigoted language and opinions. 3. Their trolling is met with a disaffected awareness that they are indeed trolls, and other users are not to pay them attention. This public awareness of trolls trolling grants internet communities a free pass to write off real racism that may manifest. As these trolls wrap legitimate social issues in absurdism/idiotism, the internet public feels less threatened by these hateful contributions and more neglectful of the power structures that such bigotry reaffirms, even in an anonymous online venue. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 16:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

The material this week was quite eye opening. I am still somewhat amazed at how 'virtual' seems to be the buzz word for bytes and bites... This myriad of information is anything but virtual...it's not going away...it's coded by the billions upon billions of 0,1s ... And if information is hanging out there that becomes accessible to folks by breaking in, how is that any different than them picking the lock on your front door and stealing your grandmother's secret recipe of spaghetti sauce. I was amazed at the debate and how anyone couldn't think there wasn't a potential threat. This cyber world Is a thief's utopia.... [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 9 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

Assignment 3 Submissions

2013-03-26T21:23:36Z

Caroline:

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 26. 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_Assignment3," 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_Assignment3.doc."

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (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].

==Submission Instructions==

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline:

Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:
<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}
</pre>

If used properly you should see the following:
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}

You may also use some new templates for comments and responses.

<pre>
{{Comment|type your comment here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}

You can enter a response in a similar way:
<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>
Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

'''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.'''

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment3.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Milenagrado|How does Reclame Aqui avoid bias?|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Milenagrado_assignment_3_.doc|File: Milenagrado_assignment_3_.doc}} [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:10, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|RichCacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Users and Restrictions of Free Speech|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hypocritical_or_Sincere_Users_and_Restrictions_of_Free_Speech.pdf}}
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:12, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Maria Jurado|Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Jurado_Assignment3.pdf}} --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 09:16, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|TAG Interesting Comments|Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:TAG_LSTU_Assignment_3.docx}}[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:54, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Muromi|Surviving in the Grey Zone Between Copyright Regimes|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Muromi_Assignment_3.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|AaronEttl|Compromising Crowdfunding Through Copyright Law|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment3.docx}} [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 11:31, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Zak Paster|Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_3_Online_Giving-A_New_Fundraising_Era_3-26-13.pdf}} [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|DearAlice|One Company, Different Social Media Platforms, Different Conversations|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Dear_Alice_Assignment3.docx}}--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 11:42, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Johnathan Merkwan|Exploring Facebook and Casey Anthony|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_3.docx}} [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:50, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Rich Cacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Uses and Restrictions of Free Speech|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Assignment_3_Final_ProjectOutline_and_Methodology_March_26_2013.pdf}} [[User:Rich|Rich]] 13:11, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Steve Ridder|Kickstarter - Fraud or Not|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Steve_Ridder_Assignment_3.docx}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Hgaylor|“Access for Open and Secure Communication
An In-depth analysis of government’s role
in the Global Collaborative Data Network”
|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hgaylor_Assignment3.docx}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Joshywonder|Lawbuzz.ca the Effects of a SLAPP suit on internet forum participation|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Joshywonder_Assignment_3.docx}} [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 14:02, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Matthew Haney|"Yelp – review filtering and its impact on brand perception"|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_3_Outline%2C_03262013.docx }}[[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:04, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Susan Goldstein|MOOCs: They Are Massive and They Are Open, but Are They Accessible?|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment3.docx}}[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 16:14, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Phillip Dade|How Sidecar Insures Value|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Dade_-_Assignment_3_Outline.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Cyber Ralph|Anonymous and Their Methodologies for Conducting Protests via the Twittersphere|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:CyberRalph_Assignment3.docx}}
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 17:05, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Caroline|Right to be forgotten and FB|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment-3.doc}}[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:23, 26 March 2013 (EDT)Caroline

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-26T16:06:50Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 26'''

Last class we learned about SOPA, and the fear that it engendered in many Internet commentators. Today we’ll start by looking at how anti-SOPA activists were mobilized on the Internet to effectively stop the implementation of this legislation. This will serve as a touchstone for other reading about use of the Internet in collective action, political protests, and the role of private corporations in protecting and facilitating this discourse across the globe.

We will be joined in the beginning of class by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/oodewale Oluwaseun "Egghead" Odewale], a fellow at the Berkman Center and an expert on West African elections and civil affairs.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

As a reminder, [[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due ''before class'' today. You can submit that assignment [[Assignment 3 Submissions|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNP9f8geCWA Yochai Benkler, SOPA/PIPA: A Case Study in Networked Discourse and Activism] (approx. 16 mins., watch all)

* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]

* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]

* [http://www.thenation.com/article/new-study-liberals-more-open-conservatives-online%23 Ari Melber, New Study: Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Tale_Two_Blogospheres_Discursive_Practices_Left_Right Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right]

* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf Jillian York, Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere] (focus on the Introduction, and “Social Media: Privacy Companies, Public Responsibilities”)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

This may be more suited to the subject of the last two classes, but I feel since the general subject of this entire class is Internet regulation I believe it is relevnt.

Having read several times Andy Sellers artful and very information article entitled "The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain names several things strike he hard, bsaed in part of my own
experiences as a political scientist and criminal and constitutional trial and appellate lawyer.

First of all our government seems really ticked off to reduce this to simple language that the Internet has taken away our imperialistic policies going back before the Monroe Doctrine. We always believe our way is the the best way and they try to communicate "It is our way or the highway," except the Information Highway is not what they mean. This highway takes away sovereign and imperialistic powers all the countries of the world try to impose on their own people and each other.

The government's faulty and frivolous attempt to control the behavior of the rest of the world through Internet control is almost a case of 21st century McCartyism. There efforts are like throwing away the baby with the bathwater. In criminal caes many states, particularly CA where I practiced have a process where a preliminary hearing is held to determine if there is probable cause to try an alleged criminal in a higher court. But the in rem process to shut down websites by enforcing forfeiture procedures is very different. Here on evidence that would not even be admitted into evidence at a preliminary hearing is allowed to not only justify prosecution, but to try in absentia the alleged perpertrators and even their victimes without benefit of any enforcement of equal protection or due process.

Americans are blessed with "inalienable rights" that few, if any other peoples have. Yet because we do not have control of those in those other societies we penalize our own people by taking property and putting restraints on them other people do not have. We give a competitive economic advantage, just as we do to companies that circumvent American labor and environmental laws who are allowed to hire individuals and companies in less restrictive countries. Our labor forces and manufacturers are penalized because they cannot compete.

The Internet has taken away the powers of the American law enforcement officials and even the United States Supreme Court because they have no jurisdiction over foreign jurisdictions and people. Here again, it is a matter of those who design new technologies racing to benefit from it with little attention given to the effect of poor planning, The FDA works in the exact opposite way when certifying food or drugs by making the process so slow that by the time they certify a drug thousands who could have been free of pain or even having their lives saved lose out as it is too late. We need a happy medium. As long as technology means not the advancement of the society, but to those privileged few who benefit financially from it the entire society will crumble.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 13:05, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

I found the lecture by Yochai Benkler very interesting. The discussion of the evolution of the internet from a weak sphere to an extensive network of organizations influencing politics and government on many levels through technology, was intriguing to say the least. It helped me shape my final paper topic to be more specific in the way I was envisioning it. This reshaping of markets and how the internet influences everything is really changing the world and how we communicate around the world is seen in my business everyday and will only continue. The future could bring with it a world of information where creativity and innovation could lead towards unbelievable results, or the global powers can be can inflict regulation and their legal might to stunt the massive growth potential. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 05:40, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

There is obvious controversy surrounding Kony 2012. Some believe that donations were not used for a worthwhile cause; others question the validity of the campaign based on the outcome (Kony was not captured in 2012); and many believe that this movement represented a western point of view, too detached from the realities of rural Africa. Whether you support or negate this crusade, my objective with this post is to examine the Kony-movement from the perspective of online social media. In other words, if we step-back and evaluate the facets of social media in this context, it’s easy to understand the power behind this mass-communication methodology. In today's world, "word" travels at the speed of light!

To support my claims, I selected a few quotes from our readings:

''"['Slacktivists'] are acting, symbolically and in a small way, in a sphere that has traditionally been closed off to 'the masses....We are a highly-symbolic, group-oriented species and signaling our preferences—to others—is a key dimension of human action. Hence, there is no ‘activism’ that does not have a strong symbolic side. [T]oday’s ‘meaningless click’ is actually a form of symbolic action which may form the basis of tomorrow’s other kind of action" (Zeynep, 2012).''

This is a powerful concept from the social media perspective. How much does a "click" really matter? As we surf the web, we come across thousands of messages, stemming from diverse sources, across countless platforms. We often take little action, beyond the click of a mouse. However, if we evaluate activism through a social media lens, awareness can ultimately make a positive societal impact, maybe not today, but down the road. In other words, watching Kony 2012 caused millions of people to take action, from politicians, to celebrities, to everyday citizens. The vast majority had never heard about Kony before this video went viral, even though he had been committing war crimes for 25+ years; and through social media, he became famous overnight. This movement, therefore, epitomizes the Internet reality we live in today—anyone can build awareness through online venues, and through awareness masses of people can take action.

''"It would not be surprising if the intensity of the attention to this video—as well as the intensity of the backlash—did not become just such a moment for many future leaders. The kids are listening, maybe to a simplistic message, maybe to a misguided cause. But some portion of them will keep looking, listening and learning. Such moments have long-terms consequences" (Zeynep, 2012).''

Symbolic power can undeniably lead to other types of power, which, as noted above, can stem from social media. Online messaging generates new realizations for those who live in shutoff realities. Before the Internet and social media communication, teenagers living in small towns throughout the U.S. were not necessarily over-exposed to global societal visions, as outlined in the Kony video; and if they were exposed to movements such as this one, it happened at a much slower pace. Today, social news travels quickly, world controversies ignite overnight, and societal uprisings can be witnessed in real-time. As a result, we have become more interconnected, and the foundation of this unification is social media. Does this mean people will now become more open to differing perspectives? Does this mean those who live in non-cultured worlds will soon become more cultured? Will social media ultimately bring more diverse groups together, on a common ground?

An important chain-reaction from the Kony video is worth highlighting: building awareness through social media leads to a broader audience that wishes to generate change; a broader audience is thus motivated to contact elected officials; based on mass influence, elected officials find the need to place new controversies on the public agenda; and as a result, action is taken (e.g., Obama sent troops to Africa to work with Uganda's soldiers). Although online communities may differ among parties and groups, as outlined in the article [[Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]], people are inevitably taking action when influenced online. Therefore, in reference to the "slaktivist" connotation above, action can, and often does emerge through online awareness. Creating a "switch" in people’s minds begins through influence; influence expands when masses unite behind a common cause; and causes spread quickly through online social media. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:41, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Free speech like so many of the "inalienable" rights that the United States Constitution guarantees to those within the jurisdiction and influence of the United States is always a two-edged sword. It is sometimes a shield to protect and hide a sword. Wherever and whenever a right or even in some cases merely a privilege is given, there will always be factions that abuse it. The social media is not always very social and has in many cases become tools for those without necessarily having roles that benefit the society or societies in general. Back when it started there were many and probably still are today who believed that it was simply a screen for pornography. I am current doing my Final Project on Wikipedia and while my research is early and very incomplete I have already formed an opinion that I reserve the right to change as I obtain more data that in many ways it is hypocritical and a vehicle under color of free speech and free content for those with their own agenda. You can draw more flies with honey than vinegar and many of these social networks and communities are skilled at doing just that.

This particular controversial film is an exercise of free speech, but no more so that the millions who protested against the Czar in Russia a century ago. However, today it does not always take such a demonstration or one in Tiananen Square in 1989 to get results and even spark a revolution. The Internet has become a mighty sword and those who fear challenged by what they perceive as evilness behind it must standup and be heard and counter anything they disagree with or else that will be considered the conventional wisdom and prevailing beliefs.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 10:19, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

When reading (and re-watching the video) the Kony controversy, the full impact of the Internet once again permeated. I hadn't realized that it had only taken 6 days for the YouTube video to go viral - I knew it was quick but hadn't logged the short time frame.
How we use the web and its far reaching effects has gone beyond what most of us imagined. With the need to be heard, societies have taken to online communication. Asking ourselves what the value of the economic impact to that video was - and the negative impact of what happened afterwards - we ponder how the impact of that free speech is worth while. Group think in a situation like that can, and often is harmful and doesn't achieve purpose in its purest form.
Push and pull is inevitable in societies -- and having complete "freedom" is a utopian view point to say the least.

However the construct of the web at it's best allows ideas and discourse to be presented allowing for constant conversation of how to make things better/fair/just etc.

The downfall is that, to quote a very old philosopher, "Happy is the country that has a hero, unhappy is the country that needs one."(Plato) Millions of people piled on the "Get Kony" objective, and the pureness of the objective, to raise the profile of the invisible children of Uganda, became a moment in time after the creator of the video had a very public meltdown. That became the story, not the plight of the children...Another example was whe Iran was making some progress with the green revolution, Michael Jackson's untimely death all but wiped the plight of that country off the front page and did a great deal to oppress that movement .... the point being that sometimes sensationalism seems to overrule the true freedom of how we could be using the web to advance change.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:06, 26 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-26T16:06:14Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 26'''

Last class we learned about SOPA, and the fear that it engendered in many Internet commentators. Today we’ll start by looking at how anti-SOPA activists were mobilized on the Internet to effectively stop the implementation of this legislation. This will serve as a touchstone for other reading about use of the Internet in collective action, political protests, and the role of private corporations in protecting and facilitating this discourse across the globe.

We will be joined in the beginning of class by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/oodewale Oluwaseun "Egghead" Odewale], a fellow at the Berkman Center and an expert on West African elections and civil affairs.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

As a reminder, [[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due ''before class'' today. You can submit that assignment [[Assignment 3 Submissions|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNP9f8geCWA Yochai Benkler, SOPA/PIPA: A Case Study in Networked Discourse and Activism] (approx. 16 mins., watch all)

* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]

* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]

* [http://www.thenation.com/article/new-study-liberals-more-open-conservatives-online%23 Ari Melber, New Study: Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Tale_Two_Blogospheres_Discursive_Practices_Left_Right Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right]

* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf Jillian York, Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere] (focus on the Introduction, and “Social Media: Privacy Companies, Public Responsibilities”)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

This may be more suited to the subject of the last two classes, but I feel since the general subject of this entire class is Internet regulation I believe it is relevnt.

Having read several times Andy Sellers artful and very information article entitled "The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain names several things strike he hard, bsaed in part of my own
experiences as a political scientist and criminal and constitutional trial and appellate lawyer.

First of all our government seems really ticked off to reduce this to simple language that the Internet has taken away our imperialistic policies going back before the Monroe Doctrine. We always believe our way is the the best way and they try to communicate "It is our way or the highway," except the Information Highway is not what they mean. This highway takes away sovereign and imperialistic powers all the countries of the world try to impose on their own people and each other.

The government's faulty and frivolous attempt to control the behavior of the rest of the world through Internet control is almost a case of 21st century McCartyism. There efforts are like throwing away the baby with the bathwater. In criminal caes many states, particularly CA where I practiced have a process where a preliminary hearing is held to determine if there is probable cause to try an alleged criminal in a higher court. But the in rem process to shut down websites by enforcing forfeiture procedures is very different. Here on evidence that would not even be admitted into evidence at a preliminary hearing is allowed to not only justify prosecution, but to try in absentia the alleged perpertrators and even their victimes without benefit of any enforcement of equal protection or due process.

Americans are blessed with "inalienable rights" that few, if any other peoples have. Yet because we do not have control of those in those other societies we penalize our own people by taking property and putting restraints on them other people do not have. We give a competitive economic advantage, just as we do to companies that circumvent American labor and environmental laws who are allowed to hire individuals and companies in less restrictive countries. Our labor forces and manufacturers are penalized because they cannot compete.

The Internet has taken away the powers of the American law enforcement officials and even the United States Supreme Court because they have no jurisdiction over foreign jurisdictions and people. Here again, it is a matter of those who design new technologies racing to benefit from it with little attention given to the effect of poor planning, The FDA works in the exact opposite way when certifying food or drugs by making the process so slow that by the time they certify a drug thousands who could have been free of pain or even having their lives saved lose out as it is too late. We need a happy medium. As long as technology means not the advancement of the society, but to those privileged few who benefit financially from it the entire society will crumble.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 13:05, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

I found the lecture by Yochai Benkler very interesting. The discussion of the evolution of the internet from a weak sphere to an extensive network of organizations influencing politics and government on many levels through technology, was intriguing to say the least. It helped me shape my final paper topic to be more specific in the way I was envisioning it. This reshaping of markets and how the internet influences everything is really changing the world and how we communicate around the world is seen in my business everyday and will only continue. The future could bring with it a world of information where creativity and innovation could lead towards unbelievable results, or the global powers can be can inflict regulation and their legal might to stunt the massive growth potential. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 05:40, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

There is obvious controversy surrounding Kony 2012. Some believe that donations were not used for a worthwhile cause; others question the validity of the campaign based on the outcome (Kony was not captured in 2012); and many believe that this movement represented a western point of view, too detached from the realities of rural Africa. Whether you support or negate this crusade, my objective with this post is to examine the Kony-movement from the perspective of online social media. In other words, if we step-back and evaluate the facets of social media in this context, it’s easy to understand the power behind this mass-communication methodology. In today's world, "word" travels at the speed of light!

To support my claims, I selected a few quotes from our readings:

''"['Slacktivists'] are acting, symbolically and in a small way, in a sphere that has traditionally been closed off to 'the masses....We are a highly-symbolic, group-oriented species and signaling our preferences—to others—is a key dimension of human action. Hence, there is no ‘activism’ that does not have a strong symbolic side. [T]oday’s ‘meaningless click’ is actually a form of symbolic action which may form the basis of tomorrow’s other kind of action" (Zeynep, 2012).''

This is a powerful concept from the social media perspective. How much does a "click" really matter? As we surf the web, we come across thousands of messages, stemming from diverse sources, across countless platforms. We often take little action, beyond the click of a mouse. However, if we evaluate activism through a social media lens, awareness can ultimately make a positive societal impact, maybe not today, but down the road. In other words, watching Kony 2012 caused millions of people to take action, from politicians, to celebrities, to everyday citizens. The vast majority had never heard about Kony before this video went viral, even though he had been committing war crimes for 25+ years; and through social media, he became famous overnight. This movement, therefore, epitomizes the Internet reality we live in today—anyone can build awareness through online venues, and through awareness masses of people can take action.

''"It would not be surprising if the intensity of the attention to this video—as well as the intensity of the backlash—did not become just such a moment for many future leaders. The kids are listening, maybe to a simplistic message, maybe to a misguided cause. But some portion of them will keep looking, listening and learning. Such moments have long-terms consequences" (Zeynep, 2012).''

Symbolic power can undeniably lead to other types of power, which, as noted above, can stem from social media. Online messaging generates new realizations for those who live in shutoff realities. Before the Internet and social media communication, teenagers living in small towns throughout the U.S. were not necessarily over-exposed to global societal visions, as outlined in the Kony video; and if they were exposed to movements such as this one, it happened at a much slower pace. Today, social news travels quickly, world controversies ignite overnight, and societal uprisings can be witnessed in real-time. As a result, we have become more interconnected, and the foundation of this unification is social media. Does this mean people will now become more open to differing perspectives? Does this mean those who live in non-cultured worlds will soon become more cultured? Will social media ultimately bring more diverse groups together, on a common ground?

An important chain-reaction from the Kony video is worth highlighting: building awareness through social media leads to a broader audience that wishes to generate change; a broader audience is thus motivated to contact elected officials; based on mass influence, elected officials find the need to place new controversies on the public agenda; and as a result, action is taken (e.g., Obama sent troops to Africa to work with Uganda's soldiers). Although online communities may differ among parties and groups, as outlined in the article [[Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]], people are inevitably taking action when influenced online. Therefore, in reference to the "slaktivist" connotation above, action can, and often does emerge through online awareness. Creating a "switch" in people’s minds begins through influence; influence expands when masses unite behind a common cause; and causes spread quickly through online social media. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:41, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Free speech like so many of the "inalienable" rights that the United States Constitution guarantees to those within the jurisdiction and influence of the United States is always a two-edged sword. It is sometimes a shield to protect and hide a sword. Wherever and whenever a right or even in some cases merely a privilege is given, there will always be factions that abuse it. The social media is not always very social and has in many cases become tools for those without necessarily having roles that benefit the society or societies in general. Back when it started there were many and probably still are today who believed that it was simply a screen for pornography. I am current doing my Final Project on Wikipedia and while my research is early and very incomplete I have already formed an opinion that I reserve the right to change as I obtain more data that in many ways it is hypocritical and a vehicle under color of free speech and free content for those with their own agenda. You can draw more flies with honey than vinegar and many of these social networks and communities are skilled at doing just that.

This particular controversial film is an exercise of free speech, but no more so that the millions who protested against the Czar in Russia a century ago. However, today it does not always take such a demonstration or one in Tiananen Square in 1989 to get results and even spark a revolution. The Internet has become a mighty sword and those who fear challenged by what they perceive as evilness behind it must standup and be heard and counter anything they disagree with or else that will be considered the conventional wisdom and prevailing beliefs.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 10:19, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

When reading (and re-watching the video) the Kony controversy, the full impact of the Internet once again permeated. I hadn't realized that it had only taken 6 days for the YouTube video to go viral - I knew it was quick but hadn't logged the short time frame.
How we use the web and its far reaching effects has gone beyond what most of us imagined. With the need to be heard, societies have taken to online communication. Asking ourselves what the value of the economic impact to that video was - and the negative impact of what happened afterwards - we ponder how the impact of that free speech is worth while. Group think in a situation like that can, and often is harmful and doesn't achieve purpose in its purest form.
Push and pull is inevitable in societies -- and having complete "freedom" is a utopian view point to say the least.

However the he construct of the web at it's best allows ideas and discourse to be presented allowing for constant conversation of how to make things better/fair/just etc.

The downfall is that, to quote a very old philosopher, "Happy is the country that has a hero, unhappy is the country that needs one."(Plato) Millions of people piled on the "Get Kony" objective, and the pureness of the objective, to raise the profile of the invisible children of Uganda, became a moment in time after the creator of the video had a very public meltdown. That became the story, not the plight of the children...Another example was whe Iran was making some progress with the green revolution, Michael Jackson's untimely death all but wiped the plight of that country off the front page and did a great deal to oppress that movement .... the point being that sometimes sensationalism seems to overrule the true freedom of how we could be using the web to advance change.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:06, 26 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-12T13:43:40Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 12'''

Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.

This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The class will also look to the now-famous fight concerning SOPA and PIPA, and other attempts to more strictly regulate against online piracy.

Special guest speaker this week is [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], a project coordinator here at Berkman who runs [http://chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings/Watchings ==

* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]

* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)

* Chilling Effects, [http://www.chillingeffects.org/about About] and peruse the [http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi weather reports].

* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]

* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]

'''Case Study: SOPA/PIPA'''
:* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]
:* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]

'''Case Study: ISP "Six Strikes"'''
:* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, On The Media, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information]
:* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]

* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

Google's decision concerning the horrific video posted in Matthew Ingram', Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters, raises an interesting question. Google has now assumed the role of immediate arbiter in terms of determining what is and is not copyright infringement. I understand the point that the student who took the video at the NASCAR event created his own copyrighted document when he created the video, but NASCAR's counter, that it had a contractual right to the content of the video pursuant to the valid contract on the ticket the customer purchased would seem to have some merit to it. Google in accepting the customer's rights over NASCAR's contractual rights has effectively made a legal decision that will cause brand damage to NASCAR. I can see how NASCAR could claim these damages against Google in a suit.
I suppose this is just another example of how powerful Google has become in determining what average Westerner's will see on the internet. A quick Google search for the word 'nude' will have google proffering you thousands of images and videos of porn, which is easily accessible by minors. Google IS the way that we all access the internet, given its prevalance in our lives I'd be surprised if the government doesn't create more formality in Google's decision making processes with regards to copyright, freedom of speech, protection of minors, and all sorts of other legal issues that Google is now deciding for society. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:35, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

I find the legislation and history on copyright law and infringement extremely confusing. It seems as if SOPA and PIPA would have completely negated major aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I share the belief that the propositions of those bills would have limited innovation. Had SOPA/PIPA have passed, I think the case of Vietnamese accessing Facebook shows that there exists markets in foreign regions that will engage in illegal means of accessing those domain names. I also was interested in the "backdoor" that sites like youtube have for content providers to remove infringed material. What other "backdoors" exist regarding copyright law and content infrastructure? [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 18:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:That's a really good point, Aaron. Thanks for mentioning it. You should definitely ask Adam about the YouTube ContentID system that they have used as an overlap to the DMCA, and what sort of problems he's seen in its implementation. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

As we study copyright, it is important to note that copyright and in fact all intellectual property laws ... patents, trademarks, trade secrets along with copyrights are in fact limitations of free speech. But the latter is not open and unlimited. Free speech has been called the core all truly democratic nations. What qualifies as a democracy is but another issue difficult if not impossible to determine depending on the definition and myriad of points of view. One estimate is 132. Regardless, given there are an estimated 350-500 million Internet users in China alone, more than every man, woman and child in United States combined, designing and controlling an Internet as a vehicle for democratic nations alone will guarantee it will reach less than half of the world's population. But even in so-called democracies free speech is not unlimited. It is qualified and limited by the need for national securities and compelling interests, the the universal rather than the individual interest, moral fiber, sensititivity, defamatory laws and the damages that can often occur by uncontrolled exposure and disclosure of information that can do more damage than good. Some control is necessary to maintain order and prevent a disorganized free for all in an attempt to exercise free speech which many do only to exercise the principal and fight to assert their own freedom of expression, regardless of the consequences.

Intellectual property laws are intended to reward those who have created things with the sweat of their brow, the absence of which will quell any incentive and to enrich the social. Without intellectual property laws mankind over the last few ages of the Industrial and now Information Revolutions would have been relegated to pre-18th century technological, communication and transportation breakthroughs. Art and science would have been inhibited. So what is needed is a proper balance between individual freedom and the good of society.

[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:05, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

:The balance between copyright and free speech is a fascinating one. There are two [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 very significant] [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Golan+v.+Holder&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=3239612723066820072&scilh=0 Supreme Court cases] on point - and in general the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that copyright itself does not violate the First Amendment (Justice O'Connor in another case famously called it the "engine of free expression"), but only as long as it includes the "traditional contours" or fair use and the idea-expression dichotomy. While this does mean as a practical matter that substantive challenges to copyright laws will not win in US courts, we tend to impose ''procedural'' protections for categorically unprotected speech that had a serious role to play in the SOPA/PIPA debate, as well as "Operation in our Sites" mentioned in the additional reading. As to whether copyright is meant to reward the "sweat of the brow," I think that it certainly informs the desire to make copyright laws, but we know from [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Fesit+v.+Rural&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=1195336269698056315&scilh=0 other Supreme Court precedent] that labor alone is not enough to obtain copyright protection in a work - it is instead the contribution of original expression that merits protection under the American system. Thanks for sharing! [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

The DCMA and Safe Harbor Act seem a useful alterternative to the report of Germany blocking for example the meteor video from Russia because there was music playing faintly in the background. Being able to post that you do not own the copyright, make no money off of it, and simply are posting for entertainment is a very familiar story on YouTube when perusing for videos. The NASCAR accident video seems a matter of due diligence so they could protect themselves from liability from the victims claiming NASCAR did not try to stop people videoing their injuries while on NASCAR property during an event. The Slung Lo example showed me the difficulty of implementing copyright infringement in court when not represented by a large company, as the commentary on the Copyright Alert System and Six Strikes alluded to and in other commentaries online regarding Six Strikes weaknesses. SOPA and PIPA I understand wish to protect property, but how many people have links to copyrighted material? On YouTube, Facebook, and blogs? What if you send a copyrighted link by email? SOPA and PIPA would send a chilling effect throughout the internet that would actually drive down the amount of internet use. CAS would keep track of violations, and a user would have to be so careful to not get six strikes as employers could access who is some type of "criminal" copyright infringer according to a extra-judicial body such as CAS. There has got to be a better way. Ultimately, those who wish to profit off of internet content and sharing must post some type of copyright mark on their creation that says to all users with a symbol, this can never be shared without permission, for any reason. However, when one enters the public space, one has to understand that some type of sharing and infringement of ideas is going to occur for non-profit reasons. This should be encouraged. Perhaps the line should only be drawn when content is used for profit. In any case, if one puts out material publically for their own gratification, one should expect that it is going to be copied. If one wishes to protect those creation rights, a bundle of legal rights through copyright law is already available through access to the courts, without over regulating the internet that is literally opening an entire new world to a global population that has lived in isolation for too long.
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 03:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

The First Amendment is an American legal concept,albeit free speech is global. Intellectual property rights are infringements on free speech, albeit necessary to accomplish the purposes of patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets which are to encourage advancements in the arts and scientists while assuring and creating incentives for those who create new ideas and products. The antithesis of organization and control is total independence and free will. If there are not safeguards in place to organize and monitor free speech chaos will follow. I think it was once said that more deaths and injuries have been caused by the written and spoken word than all the guns every made.

On last week's discussion board I posted my comments on this subject in ore depth, so I will not repeat them here, other than to again empathize that free speech is part of global communication that the Internet provides and all societies do not welcome it with open arms so if we are to get the rest of the world to coordinate the great potential of the Internet, we need to compromise even our most cherished personal right.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

While I am all in favour of free speech, I guess I have to add - "to a point".
In the article about the Nascar video being reinstated, it seemed to be touted as some great victory for copyright and free speech that it was re-released after being pulled. Here is my issue with that and all other like situations. What about the right of the victim (or any individual) that has been hurt or worse and is then immortalized on video or in pictures trapped under a burning tire etc. In the interests of full disclosure, a member of my family was killed in a serious car accident which resulted in a building partially falling on top of his vehicle. It was bad enough to see the pictures of the car after he had been pulled out, but I can't imagine how horrible it would be to be the relative of that person and see pictures of him. Freedom of speech is a gift and a wonderful thing, but in this age of instant pictures and video should we not be more sensitive to the lives attached (specifically) to tragedy? What good does it do in the broader debate about freedom when the rights of the individual, who may not be able to speak for themselves, are not consulted. I suggest that maybe that isn't freedom of speech as much as sensationalism although I am sure others would argue differently. Life seems to swing in a pendulum. Maybe my descendants will move back to a more closed society if one major event that I can't project pushes the value system of the majority to say enough. I'm not sure and I would welcome any comments. [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 09:43, 12 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline

Extra Credit Submissions

2013-03-07T17:31:12Z

Caroline:

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 7.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 14th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.

If you do plan on uploading a file, ''please name your file "wikiusername_extracredit," 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 PowerPoint document your file should be named "jdoe_extracredit.ppt."

Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give.

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

==Submissions==

I would like to participate in the extra credit assignment by sending along a link to an iMovie that will go through "the right to be forgotten" in a narrative format.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:31, 7 March 2013 (EST)Caroline

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T23:05:32Z

Caroline:

{{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)

Laurence Girard: This is an interesting question and I think you could start by researching specific laws that would be relevant to your question. You might also research how US internet law affects Internet freedom in South America since this is probably connected.

******

*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.

ASmith: Really intriguing topic. I have mixed feelings about the ability of a dispersed community to handle social data better than a hierarchical corporation, or to gain traction in the market, but it'll be fascinating to see what they do, and how they do it. - Rob McLain

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 08:32, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: Very interesting topic with a clear, well-developed question. I'm sure you'll develop this more down the road, but it does seem like you'll probably be gathering very large amounts of data through the various community hubs you've identified. How will you focus your observations? Will you "observe" the community for a specific period of time or take more of a long-range perspective, considering how the community's come thus far in this stage of its development? All in all, though, really looking forward to seeing what comes out of this project! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 17:01, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )

Laurence Girard: It will certainly be an interesting project because you will get to see how a new social network grows. It will be interesting to see if people treat this social network similar to Facebook or act entirely differently!

******

*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)

Laurence Girard: I think that it would be particularly interesting to think about specific instances on the Internet where free speech should not be allowed. There are very few cases in which free speech is not allowed so I urge you to think about this for your project.

******

*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,<br />
: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.<br />
: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.<br />
:[[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)

Laurence Girard: This will be an interesting project and I am eager to see your results because I have used both of these websites in the past. It would also be interesting to see how these websites handle under the age of 18 using their websites. This is something I urge you to think about for chat roulette. Is there really a way for someone to verify that a user is 18? People can just lie clearly and say they are 18 even if they are not 18.

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor <br />
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” <br />
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. <br />
*'''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)

Laurence Girard: I think that it would be particularly interesting for you to not just focus on the US, but to compare and contrast other countries such as Egypt and China for this project. What do yo uthink?

******

*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.<br />
[[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)

:Alice: It seems a given that Starbucks would police its own social media site more vigorously than it would a Facebook page. Will you investigate the Starbuck's terms of service for the site, maybe in comparison to Facebook's terms of service? Are Starbucks terms more restrictive? Rob McLain

Alice: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:22, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline

Laurence Girard: Good choice! One question I have is why you choose to only focus on Starbucks? Why not focus on multiple companies and compare the policies that multiple companies have regarding your chosen topic?

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" <br />
*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)

Laurence Girard: This is a good topic and I think you should talk about what rights users should have in terms of free speech and administrators (sometimes unjustfully) banning people from a community. Should site owners have total control or should their be limits on what administrators can do because of freedom of speech?

******

*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)

Laurence Girard: I suggest that you check out the digital mellenium copyright act and also check out companies like Associated Content (now Yahoo voices!) and Demand Media Studios for this assignment! -Laurence Girard....also think about bloggers who may copy other people's material!
******

*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)
*
I love the idea of how you are analyzing a community that is critiquing a larger popular community. I wonder if it is worthwhile to look into the culture: similarities and differences between the two and analyze it from there (major themes etc). It may be tricky to code themes because of time frames, or timing, so be careful! Also, be sure to include why core members are core members, and why they are the ones you are watching out for. I would also be careful in defining what are considered norms on Twitter and Weird Twitter.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: Good topic and one thing I would suggest is that you compare this structure to the structure of a typical forum with threads and categories etc. Are there any similarities that you might be able to map in a neat diagram?

******

*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)
*
Joshywonder: I am very fascinated with your topic, but am curious about the idea of whether or not it is important the users are all from Canada and if the anonymous users are from there? I also wonder, if this may be of importance to your project: If the power of the courts and laws are aligned with what is happening online? What I mean is, what legal tests are there used to determine what is deemed private and so forth, and if they are aligned with peoples online experiences?
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: I think that the main thing you are going to want to consider here is defamation of character vs. freedom of speech. Shouldn't people be allowed to say what they want about other people the same way we are allowed to say what we want about politicians as long as it is true to some extent??

******

*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

Laurence Girard: Interesting...you might investigate whether this would fall under the realm of false advertising.

******

*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)

:Milena: How will you choose which users to contact? How will you ensure it's a representative sample? The danger in this approach is that your conclusions about the site may be skewed by your user sample. Otherwise, though, your project incorporates some great questions. Rob McLain

******

* 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,<br/>
: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. <br />
: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.<br />
:[[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)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 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)
*
This is a very interesting topic. I am left wondering though, what you deem to be major brands that you should look into and how they "market" their products so that people "like" it. How does the idea of social media connect to users liking the product? Is it just the fact that social media networking is powerful and constitutes a lot of people following brands online and liking stuff? What about other types of "likes"....like when people "like" pictures, quotes etc...is that a type of marketing strategy as well? What methodology will you go about to link that a lot of "likes" is a marketing strategy - what I mean is that, the more likes = the more successful a product is? How might you determine that? I am interested to see the end result of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 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)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 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)

Hi Rob, I think this is a great topic! I've watched a comment of mine disappear off a restaurant site -- it's interesting to have the tie in to the advertising and of course the benefit for the particular venue in keeping their "star" rating. It's a big challenge to dive into Yelp but it will be amazing for you to find links to different ways these sites may scheme to have a contrived presence to the public. Are you planning on comparisons to Open Table or Around Me? Yelp is probably big enough to tackle as is, but you may open up some really great discussions for all the others as well. Amazing project!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:27, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline

******

*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)
*

The right to be forgotten is a very interesting start to your project. What I propose is that you look into a focus or community or example of what you may mean by that. For example, you can look into teachers who were fired from posting up comments on their students on Facebook. It is important to narrow your scope, whether it be a certain case or a law you found that prohibits or encourages this new phenomenon of "not" forgetting. Also, you can look into how the privacy rights on the community you are studying changed to either perpetuate this or help falter it.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Thanks guys!!! I greatly appreciate the comments/feedback and look forward to more as I narrow the scope and flesh out the paper! [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 18:05, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******

*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)
*
Questions that comes up when reading your proposal is: how might you connect all of these questions together and how do things like the market link to regulation on the website? How might this internet control you perceive me relevant to general travel websites and what is significant in your study? What I mean by that is...what about control on the website? Why does it matter?
Other than that, interesting topic and I look forward to seeing the final product of your project! Flyertalk seems like a very fascinating community. [[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:42, 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)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 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)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*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)
*
This is very interesting of a topic. I hope you consider talking a bit about privacy rights incorporating it into whether or not doxxing is considered proper. Also, it may be of interest to your topic to discuss why certain members are targeted and what are the commonalities in the ones targeted. I look forward to the final product of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Interesting topic! I am not sure why you chose Reddit in particular for doxxing - could you elaborate?
******

*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)

Jax: I'm so interested in this topic and I think you articulated it very well! My one suggestion would be to make sure that you very carefully define the abstract standards against which you're judging the site--namely "objectivity." After all, what does "objectivity" mean in this context? Is it objectivity on the part of the site's administrators to curate the lyrics in such a way that don't cater to any particular readership? And is that even in line with the object of the site itself, given its stated aims? I.e. are you developing a critique of the site's premise, or searching for any disconnects between the premise and the administrators' behavior? Overall, I think that your question about the "distribution of power" throughout the site might be a more useful frame, one that gets at essentially the same issues without getting bogged down in abstract semantics that could prove distracting from your essential question. Looking forward to reading more! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:40, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: It will be interesting to see how the profiteering attitude of Rap Genius' operators interacts with the essentially commercial and dramatized character of rap lyrics. The direct involvement of high capital (AH) speaks to the emptiness of Rap Genius' engagement with its subject, as the company's mission drives it away from an authentic phenomenology of urban poverty. Whether Rap Genius as a developing community can successfully interrogate the role that violence, debauchery and lawlessness play in the aesthetic power of rap music remains to be seen, but the sort of superficial glamorization that Rap Genius seems designed to promote will be a useless tool for its exegetical task.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:10, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Laurence Girard: Interesting project! I think one thing that you will want to focus on is observing who uses the website. The website was founded by Ivy league graduates, but will it be used by individuals of a similar level of education? If not, who will moderate the comments or will the comments be moderated at all?

******

*'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[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)

Laurence Girard: Hi! It would be interesting to see if there are any website out there in which healthcare professionals moderate the comments or if the websites you have chosen are simply more similar to Yahoo Answers! I know for a fact that there are some websites in which doctors answer questions such as health tap and it would be interesting for you to include some websites that include health professionals in your analysis.
******

*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)

Laurrence Girard: I think the fundamental question that you need to deal with is whether or not this feature helps people find more relevant information or infringes on their privacy!

******

*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)
*
This seems very big of a topic. I would try to narrow it down to only one of the sites and something particular on the website. It might be even more important to narrow down your question to what type of health information and how you are attaining your information (Just by the users of the websites?) and whether or not the users or the websites would necessarily be representative of everyone reading health information...Goodluck with your project! I look forward to the final product! [[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:27:31Z

Caroline:

{{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)

Laurence Girard: This is an interesting question and I think you could start by researching specific laws that would be relevant to your question. You might also research how US internet law affects Internet freedom in South America since this is probably connected.

******

*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.

ASmith: Really intriguing topic. I have mixed feelings about the ability of a dispersed community to handle social data better than a hierarchical corporation, or to gain traction in the market, but it'll be fascinating to see what they do, and how they do it. - Rob McLain

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 08:32, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: Very interesting topic with a clear, well-developed question. I'm sure you'll develop this more down the road, but it does seem like you'll probably be gathering very large amounts of data through the various community hubs you've identified. How will you focus your observations? Will you "observe" the community for a specific period of time or take more of a long-range perspective, considering how the community's come thus far in this stage of its development? All in all, though, really looking forward to seeing what comes out of this project! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 17:01, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )

Laurence Girard: It will certainly be an interesting project because you will get to see how a new social network grows. It will be interesting to see if people treat this social network similar to Facebook or act entirely differently!

******

*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)

Laurence Girard: I think that it would be particularly interesting to think about specific instances on the Internet where free speech should not be allowed. There are very few cases in which free speech is not allowed so I urge you to think about this for your project.

******

*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,<br />
: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.<br />
: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.<br />
:[[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)

Laurence Girard: This will be an interesting project and I am eager to see your results because I have used both of these websites in the past. It would also be interesting to see how these websites handle under the age of 18 using their websites. This is something I urge you to think about for chat roulette. Is there really a way for someone to verify that a user is 18? People can just lie clearly and say they are 18 even if they are not 18.

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor <br />
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” <br />
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. <br />
*'''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)

Laurence Girard: I think that it would be particularly interesting for you to not just focus on the US, but to compare and contrast other countries such as Egypt and China for this project. What do yo uthink?

******

*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.<br />
[[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)

:Alice: It seems a given that Starbucks would police its own social media site more vigorously than it would a Facebook page. Will you investigate the Starbuck's terms of service for the site, maybe in comparison to Facebook's terms of service? Are Starbucks terms more restrictive? Rob McLain

Alice: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:22, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline

Laurence Girard: Good choice! One question I have is why you choose to only focus on Starbucks? Why not focus on multiple companies and compare the policies that multiple companies have regarding your chosen topic?

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" <br />
*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)

:Milena: How will you choose which users to contact? How will you ensure it's a representative sample? The danger in this approach is that your conclusions about the site may be skewed by your user sample. Otherwise, though, your project incorporates some great questions. Rob McLain

******

* 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,<br/>
: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. <br />
: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.<br />
:[[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)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 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)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 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)

Hi Rob, I think this is a great topic! I've watched a comment of mine disappear off a restaurant site -- it's interesting to have the tie in to the advertising and of course the benefit for the particular venue in keeping their "star" rating. It's a big challenge to dive into Yelp but it will be amazing for you to find links to different ways these sites may scheme to have a contrived presence to the public. Are you planning on comparisons to Open Table or Around Me? Yelp is probably big enough to tackle as is, but you may open up some really great discussions for all the others as well. Amazing project!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:27, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline

******

*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)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 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)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*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)

Jax: I'm so interested in this topic and I think you articulated it very well! My one suggestion would be to make sure that you very carefully define the abstract standards against which you're judging the site--namely "objectivity." After all, what does "objectivity" mean in this context? Is it objectivity on the part of the site's administrators to curate the lyrics in such a way that don't cater to any particular readership? And is that even in line with the object of the site itself, given its stated aims? I.e. are you developing a critique of the site's premise, or searching for any disconnects between the premise and the administrators' behavior? Overall, I think that your question about the "distribution of power" throughout the site might be a more useful frame, one that gets at essentially the same issues without getting bogged down in abstract semantics that could prove distracting from your essential question. Looking forward to reading more! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:40, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: It will be interesting to see how the profiteering attitude of Rap Genius' operators interacts with the essentially commercial and dramatized character of rap lyrics. The direct involvement of high capital (AH) speaks to the emptiness of Rap Genius' engagement with its subject, as the company's mission drives it away from an authentic phenomenology of urban poverty. Whether Rap Genius as a developing community can successfully interrogate the role that violence, debauchery and lawlessness play in the aesthetic power of rap music remains to be seen, but the sort of superficial glamorization that Rap Genius seems designed to promote will be a useless tool for its exegetical task.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:10, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[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

2013-03-05T22:22:11Z

Caroline:

{{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)

Laurence Girard: This is an interesting question and I think you could start by researching specific laws that would be relevant to your question. You might also research how US internet law affects Internet freedom in South America since this is probably connected.

******

*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.

ASmith: Really intriguing topic. I have mixed feelings about the ability of a dispersed community to handle social data better than a hierarchical corporation, or to gain traction in the market, but it'll be fascinating to see what they do, and how they do it. - Rob McLain

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 08:32, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: Very interesting topic with a clear, well-developed question. I'm sure you'll develop this more down the road, but it does seem like you'll probably be gathering very large amounts of data through the various community hubs you've identified. How will you focus your observations? Will you "observe" the community for a specific period of time or take more of a long-range perspective, considering how the community's come thus far in this stage of its development? All in all, though, really looking forward to seeing what comes out of this project! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 17:01, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )

Laurence Girard: It will certainly be an interesting project because you will get to see how a new social network grows. It will be interesting to see if people treat this social network similar to Facebook or act entirely differently!

******

*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)

Laurence Girard: I think that it would be particularly interesting to think about specific instances on the Internet where free speech should not be allowed. There are very few cases in which free speech is not allowed so I urge you to think about this for your project.

******

*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,<br />
: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.<br />
: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.<br />
:[[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)

Laurence Girard: This will be an interesting project and I am eager to see your results because I have used both of these websites in the past. It would also be interesting to see how these websites handle under the age of 18 using their websites. This is something I urge you to think about for chat roulette. Is there really a way for someone to verify that a user is 18? People can just lie clearly and say they are 18 even if they are not 18.

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor <br />
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” <br />
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. <br />
*'''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.<br />
[[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)

:Alice: It seems a given that Starbucks would police its own social media site more vigorously than it would a Facebook page. Will you investigate the Starbuck's terms of service for the site, maybe in comparison to Facebook's terms of service? Are Starbucks terms more restrictive? Rob McLain

Alice: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:22, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" <br />
*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)

:Milena: How will you choose which users to contact? How will you ensure it's a representative sample? The danger in this approach is that your conclusions about the site may be skewed by your user sample. Otherwise, though, your project incorporates some great questions. Rob McLain

******

* 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,<br/>
: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. <br />
: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.<br />
:[[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)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 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)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 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)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 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)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*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)

Jax: I'm so interested in this topic and I think you articulated it very well! My one suggestion would be to make sure that you very carefully define the abstract standards against which you're judging the site--namely "objectivity." After all, what does "objectivity" mean in this context? Is it objectivity on the part of the site's administrators to curate the lyrics in such a way that don't cater to any particular readership? And is that even in line with the object of the site itself, given its stated aims? I.e. are you developing a critique of the site's premise, or searching for any disconnects between the premise and the administrators' behavior? Overall, I think that your question about the "distribution of power" throughout the site might be a more useful frame, one that gets at essentially the same issues without getting bogged down in abstract semantics that could prove distracting from your essential question. Looking forward to reading more! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:40, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: It will be interesting to see how the profiteering attitude of Rap Genius' operators interacts with the essentially commercial and dramatized character of rap lyrics. The direct involvement of high capital (AH) speaks to the emptiness of Rap Genius' engagement with its subject, as the company's mission drives it away from an authentic phenomenology of urban poverty. Whether Rap Genius as a developing community can successfully interrogate the role that violence, debauchery and lawlessness play in the aesthetic power of rap music remains to be seen, but the sort of superficial glamorization that Rap Genius seems designed to promote will be a useless tool for its exegetical task.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:10, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[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

2013-03-05T22:15:12Z

Caroline:

{{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.

ASmith: Really intriguing topic. I have mixed feelings about the ability of a dispersed community to handle social data better than a hierarchical corporation, or to gain traction in the market, but it'll be fascinating to see what they do, and how they do it. - Rob McLain

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 08:32, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: Very interesting topic with a clear, well-developed question. I'm sure you'll develop this more down the road, but it does seem like you'll probably be gathering very large amounts of data through the various community hubs you've identified. How will you focus your observations? Will you "observe" the community for a specific period of time or take more of a long-range perspective, considering how the community's come thus far in this stage of its development? All in all, though, really looking forward to seeing what comes out of this project! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 17:01, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )

[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:10, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline

******

*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,<br />
: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.<br />
: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.<br />
:[[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 <br />
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” <br />
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. <br />
*'''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.<br />
[[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)

:Alice: It seems a given that Starbucks would police its own social media site more vigorously than it would a Facebook page. Will you investigate the Starbuck's terms of service for the site, maybe in comparison to Facebook's terms of service? Are Starbucks terms more restrictive? Rob McLain

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" <br />
*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)

:Milena: How will you choose which users to contact? How will you ensure it's a representative sample? The danger in this approach is that your conclusions about the site may be skewed by your user sample. Otherwise, though, your project incorporates some great questions. Rob McLain

******

* 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,<br/>
: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. <br />
: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.<br />
:[[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)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 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)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 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)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 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)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*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)

Jax: I'm so interested in this topic and I think you articulated it very well! My one suggestion would be to make sure that you very carefully define the abstract standards against which you're judging the site--namely "objectivity." After all, what does "objectivity" mean in this context? Is it objectivity on the part of the site's administrators to curate the lyrics in such a way that don't cater to any particular readership? And is that even in line with the object of the site itself, given its stated aims? I.e. are you developing a critique of the site's premise, or searching for any disconnects between the premise and the administrators' behavior? Overall, I think that your question about the "distribution of power" throughout the site might be a more useful frame, one that gets at essentially the same issues without getting bogged down in abstract semantics that could prove distracting from your essential question. Looking forward to reading more! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:40, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: It will be interesting to see how the profiteering attitude of Rap Genius' operators interacts with the essentially commercial and dramatized character of rap lyrics. The direct involvement of high capital (AH) speaks to the emptiness of Rap Genius' engagement with its subject, as the company's mission drives it away from an authentic phenomenology of urban poverty. Whether Rap Genius as a developing community can successfully interrogate the role that violence, debauchery and lawlessness play in the aesthetic power of rap music remains to be seen, but the sort of superficial glamorization that Rap Genius seems designed to promote will be a useless tool for its exegetical task.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:10, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[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

2013-03-05T22:10:01Z

Caroline:

{{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.

ASmith: Really intriguing topic. I have mixed feelings about the ability of a dispersed community to handle social data better than a hierarchical corporation, or to gain traction in the market, but it'll be fascinating to see what they do, and how they do it. - Rob McLain

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 08:32, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: Very interesting topic with a clear, well-developed question. I'm sure you'll develop this more down the road, but it does seem like you'll probably be gathering very large amounts of data through the various community hubs you've identified. How will you focus your observations? Will you "observe" the community for a specific period of time or take more of a long-range perspective, considering how the community's come thus far in this stage of its development? All in all, though, really looking forward to seeing what comes out of this project! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 17:01, 5 March 2013 (EST)

ASmith: I like your topic very much. You have focused well and are looking at specific aspects for the marketing effort and the effects it has. I would be cautious about inserting yourself too much into the conversations as that may slant the results. I think social media is one of the more interesting ways that companies are now communicating... and to what end does the voice of the many change how the company leans into its go forward strategy.
As a Starbucks girl I'll be looking forward to your outcomes! : )

[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:10, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline

******

*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,<br />
: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.<br />
: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.<br />
:[[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 <br />
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” <br />
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. <br />
*'''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.<br />
[[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)

:Alice: It seems a given that Starbucks would police its own social media site more vigorously than it would a Facebook page. Will you investigate the Starbuck's terms of service for the site, maybe in comparison to Facebook's terms of service? Are Starbucks terms more restrictive? Rob McLain

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" <br />
*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)

:Milena: How will you choose which users to contact? How will you ensure it's a representative sample? The danger in this approach is that your conclusions about the site may be skewed by your user sample. Otherwise, though, your project incorporates some great questions. Rob McLain

******

* 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,<br/>
: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. <br />
: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.<br />
:[[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)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 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)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 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)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 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)

Jax: I'm so interested in this topic and I think you articulated it very well! My one suggestion would be to make sure that you very carefully define the abstract standards against which you're judging the site--namely "objectivity." After all, what does "objectivity" mean in this context? Is it objectivity on the part of the site's administrators to curate the lyrics in such a way that don't cater to any particular readership? And is that even in line with the object of the site itself, given its stated aims? I.e. are you developing a critique of the site's premise, or searching for any disconnects between the premise and the administrators' behavior? Overall, I think that your question about the "distribution of power" throughout the site might be a more useful frame, one that gets at essentially the same issues without getting bogged down in abstract semantics that could prove distracting from your essential question. Looking forward to reading more! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:40, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[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

2013-02-26T18:29:02Z

Caroline:

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-02-26T18:28:38Z

Caroline:

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-02-26T18:27:17Z

Caroline:

Assignment 1 Submissions

2013-02-12T16:03:15Z

Caroline:

{{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

Assignment 1 Submissions

2013-02-12T16:02:24Z

Caroline:

{{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

File:G&M.doc

2013-02-12T15:56:37Z

Caroline: Reference for wiki addition

Reference for wiki addition

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2013-02-05T21:43:48Z

Caroline:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 5'''

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

This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments. The second hour of the class will focus on the [[Final Project|final project]] for the class, where we will discuss the research prompt, talk about some successful projects from prior years, and plot out the deadlines for the rest of the semester.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

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

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

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'', (Chapters 1 and 4 only)]

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (pp. 379-396 only; stop at "The Physical Layer")]

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/2011/WhiteFlight.pdf danah boyd, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook] (read 1-11, skim 12-18, read 19-end)

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310020 Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law (Focus on sections I and II)]

</onlyinclude>
== Assignment 1 ==

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

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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>

Prepared by TAG

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

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

**********

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

**********

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

***********

Two separate but related thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

*****

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

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

*****
I enjoyed reading about social network articles and how these networks influence individuals in life. The concept of openness, alone, Facebook as an example brings ample views and ideas how people share their lives throughout the simple “public” concept as Internet. Social media is continually evolving and keeping individuals up to date well informed on that social media could offer thru secure and controlled experience. The main question arises is where the Internet is going and where it has been throughout the lenses of technological evolution and innovative experiments. Social networks continue to surround each of us, and continue to navigate the regulatory enterprise and practices around the world. Due to issues that Internet is altering the complex amounts of information, the social networks still come in a long perspective of academia and popular culture arenas. Is it still considers a “real world”? In my view that it’s the main criticism of social network via Internet. Is there a control and secure openness thru social media (Facebook, twitter)? How people interpret the information? I this there are ample questions that still retain the privacy control throughout the demographics of social media.
[[User:User777|user777]] 13:08, 5 February 2013 (EST)

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

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-01-29T19:55:28Z

Caroline:

{{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