Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-22T21:41:03Z

Dreed07: /* Submissions */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due March 8''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due April 5''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]]<br />
''Due May 10''

</div>
This assignment is due on February 22. 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).

''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===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 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===
*Name: Caroline McLoughlin
*Prospectus title: Privacy and Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf

*Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]
*Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc

*Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc

*Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc

*Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Mary Van Gils
*Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc

*Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]
*Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc

*Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon
*Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf

*Name: Kristina Meshkova
*Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf

*Name:Vladimir Trojak--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
*Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011
*Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
*Comments:

*Name: Robert Cunningham
*Prospectus title: The Archive Team
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf

*Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]
*Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc

*Name: Susan Lemont
*Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Elisha Surillo
* Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc

* Name: Lorena Abuín
* Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf

* Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]
* Prospectus title: Just How Anonymous are You?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Guy Clinch --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: An Examination of Internet and Society Coursework through the Metaphor of web.alive
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf

* Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]
* Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]
*Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]
*Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf

* Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc

* Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-22T21:40:46Z

Dreed07: /* Submissions */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due March 8''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due April 5''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]]<br />
''Due May 10''

</div>
This assignment is due on February 22. 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).

''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===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 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===
*Name: Caroline McLoughlin
*Prospectus title: Privacy and Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf

*Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]
*Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc

*Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc

*Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc

*Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Mary Van Gils
*Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc

*Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]
*Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc

*Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon
*Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf

*Name: Kristina Meshkova
*Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf

*Name:Vladimir Trojak--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
*Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

*Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011
*Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
*Comments:

*Name: Robert Cunningham
*Prospectus title: The Archive Team
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf

*Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]
*Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc

*Name: Susan Lemont
*Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Elisha Surillo
* Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc

* Name: Lorena Abuín
* Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf

* Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]
* Prospectus title: Just How Anonymous are You?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Guy Clinch --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: An Examination of Internet and Society Coursework through the Metaphor of web.alive
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf

* Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]
* Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]
*Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]
*Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf

* Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc

* Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc

Assignment 1 Submissions

2011-02-10T21:08:25Z

Dreed07: /* Submissions */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due March 8''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due April 5''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]]<br />
''Due May 10''

</div>
''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

* Name:
* Link to rule: (the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Submissions===

*Name: Denise Reed [[User:Dreed07|Dreed07]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_1.doc

*Name: Jamil Buie [[User:Buie|Jamil Buie]]
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Phi_Alpha
*LInk to Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LTSU_E120_assignment_1.doc

*Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: Deinous| Deinous]]
*Link to rule:http:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism
*Link to report:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment1.doc

*Name: Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|acrowe]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Crowe_LSTUE120_1.doc

*Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 01:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-1_visa
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_1.doc

*Name: Corey MacDonald
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Moore_(attorney)
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_-_Assignment_1.doc

*Name: La Keisha Landrum
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
*Link to report:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLandrum_Assignment1.doc

*Name: Mary Van Gils
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_secrecy
*Link to report:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Wikipedia_Neutral_Point_of_View.doc

*Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone_7
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Brian_Smith_-_Ownership_Rule_v2.pdf

*Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 18:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment1_Report_Y_Kim.doc

*Name:Susan Jennings:
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indexed_annuity
*Link to your report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_No._1.doc

*Name: Jillian York[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship#Burma
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jillian_C_York_-assignment_1.txt

*Name:Guy Clinch --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 17:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1
*Link to your report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_1_%28gclinch%29.pdf

*Name:Vladimir Kruglyak: [[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines
*Link to your report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:The_rule_you_chose.txt

*Name:Gagan Panjhazari [[User:gpanjhazari|gpanjhazari]] 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:GP-Assignment1.doc

*Name:Joshua Surillo [[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSR-570
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment-1.doc

*Name: Alex Solomon
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment1.pdf

*Name: Brandon A Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_crossbows
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:BrandonAndrzejAssignment_1.doc

*Name:Vladimir Trojak --[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_1_wikipedia_report.pdf

*Name:Adriana Torii[[User:drifaria]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPO
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Wikipediaassignment.doc

*Name: Alokika Singh [[User: singh singh]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Feb._8.pdf

*Name: Lorena Abuín [[User:lorenabuin]]
*Link to rule:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociedad_General_de_Autores_y_Editores
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_1_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.doc

*Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [[User:syedshirazi]]
*Link to rule:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_buying
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Shirazi_Assignment1.pdf

*Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:earboleda]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_application
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:HES_Assignment1.pdf

*Name: Susan Lemont [[User:SCL]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Department_of_Social_Relations
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Assignment_1.doc

*Name: Jessica Sanfilippo [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 14:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jsanfilippo_Assignment_1.doc

*Name:Anna Christiana M. C. Machado [[User:Anna]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoconferencing
*Link to report:

*Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Internet_and_Society_Technologies_and_policies_of_control_Assignment_1_Wikipedia.pdf

*Name: Michelle C Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]]
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assgn1-WikipediaPolicies.doc

Name: Elisha Surillo
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Uribe_Uribe
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_1.doc

Assignment 1 Submissions

2011-02-10T21:08:07Z

Dreed07: /* Submissions */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due March 8''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due April 5''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]]<br />
''Due May 10''

</div>
''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

* Name:
* Link to rule: (the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Submissions===

*Name: Denise Reed [[User:Dreed07|Dreed07]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_1.doc

*Name: Jamil Buie [[User:Buie|Jamil Buie]]
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Phi_Alpha
*LInk to Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LTSU_E120_assignment_1.doc

*Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: Deinous| Deinous]]
*Link to rule:http:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism
*Link to report:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment1.doc

*Name: Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|acrowe]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Crowe_LSTUE120_1.doc

*Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 01:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-1_visa
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_1.doc

*Name: Corey MacDonald
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Moore_(attorney)
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_-_Assignment_1.doc

*Name: La Keisha Landrum
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
*Link to report:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLandrum_Assignment1.doc

*Name: Mary Van Gils
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_secrecy
*Link to report:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Wikipedia_Neutral_Point_of_View.doc

*Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone_7
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Brian_Smith_-_Ownership_Rule_v2.pdf

*Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 18:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment1_Report_Y_Kim.doc

*Name:Susan Jennings:
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indexed_annuity
*Link to your report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_No._1.doc

*Name: Jillian York[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship#Burma
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jillian_C_York_-assignment_1.txt

*Name:Guy Clinch --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 17:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1
*Link to your report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_1_%28gclinch%29.pdf

*Name:Vladimir Kruglyak: [[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines
*Link to your report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:The_rule_you_chose.txt

*Name:Gagan Panjhazari [[User:gpanjhazari|gpanjhazari]] 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:GP-Assignment1.doc

*Name:Joshua Surillo [[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSR-570
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment-1.doc

*Name: Alex Solomon
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment1.pdf

*Name: Brandon A Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_crossbows
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:BrandonAndrzejAssignment_1.doc

*Name:Vladimir Trojak --[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_1_wikipedia_report.pdf

*Name:Adriana Torii[[User:drifaria]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPO
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Wikipediaassignment.doc

*Name: Alokika Singh [[User: singh singh]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Feb._8.pdf

*Name: Lorena Abuín [[User:lorenabuin]]
*Link to rule:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociedad_General_de_Autores_y_Editores
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_1_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.doc

*Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [[User:syedshirazi]]
*Link to rule:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_buying
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Shirazi_Assignment1.pdf

*Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:earboleda]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_application
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:HES_Assignment1.pdf

*Name: Susan Lemont [[User:SCL]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Department_of_Social_Relations
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Assignment_1.doc

*Name: Jessica Sanfilippo [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 14:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jsanfilippo_Assignment_1.doc

*Name:Anna Christiana M. C. Machado [[User:Anna]]
*Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoconferencing
*Link to report:

*Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Internet_and_Society_Technologies_and_policies_of_control_Assignment_1_Wikipedia.pdf

*Name: Michelle C Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]]
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assgn1-WikipediaPolicies.doc

Name: Elisha Surillo
*Link to Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
*Link to Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Uribe_Uribe
*Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_1.doc

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2011-02-08T20:11:03Z

Dreed07: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 1'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: Due to snow in Cambridge, class is canceled today. To make up for the cancellation, we'll be adding an hour to each of the next two class sessions (February 8 and 15).'''</div>
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 propose and develop one framework for 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.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (Read pages 379-396. The rest of this chapter expands the discussions of each layer in more detail, if you want to read more about them)

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet - Chapters 1 & 2]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

For people interested in a more technical primer on the architecture of the web, how email works, etc. check out ethan zuckerman and andrew mclaughlin's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

Some fred turner resources: [http://blip.tv/file/125930 video presentation], [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/12/01/from-counterculture-to-cyberculture-the-rise-of-digital-utopianism/ audio presentation], and [http://www.stanford.edu/group/fredturner/cgi-bin/drupal/ homepage]

[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium Citizendium]

Jason Scott on [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808 The Great Failure of Wikipedia] (2004)

[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/012611-internet-providers-are-the-new.html Internet providers are the new secret police, says report]

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List]

[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-fail Open Source #FAIL]

"For all its allure, the Internet can be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets." - US Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the U.S. Homeland Security Committee [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352375/Plan-Obama-kill-switch-powers-cut-internet-access-event-national-cyber-crisis.html Call to give Obama 'kill switch' powers to cut internet access in the event of national cyber crisis] 1 Feb 2011

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30shane.html Spotlight Again Falls on Web Tools and Change - article on how repressive regimes can use the internet and new media to their advantage]

== 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:RebekahHeacock|RebekahHeacock]] 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)'''</div>

Reading the Cluetrain Manifesto, I could not help but to remember what Henry Ford said, “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.” Clearly, this kind of top-down approach no longer has its place in the modern world. The fact that the Internet has changed the way companies interact with their customers is as widespread as undeniable. However, I want to remark that the lack of universal access to technology has actually marginalized those consumers without the means or skills of getting themselves heard through the cyberspace more ever than before. Businesses are adapting quickly to the new changes in the market. However, I want to question, how well are we, as a society, sharing the benefits of technology to those who do not have access? [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Cluetrain Manifesto blurs the lines between who is considered the market, employee, corporation and the communication between the three. A key point in my mind is that each one has a human voice despite it's position, so many theses are fundamentally flawed. Trust builds loyalty in markets, online markets are not immune to advertisements. Online advertising is changing in dramatic, more personal ways as uses of the Internet evolve.--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

While reading this Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace i can not shake a thought of Technological Singularity which is supposed to come by the earliest estimates around the year 2020... Science fiction or a true possibility? --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia offers knowledge on extensive topics, holding the better model, is there not a huge concern that there is no longer postings of validated facts versus mere opinion?

Here is a link to the BBC World Service documentary Wikipedia at 10 - a 22.5 minute retrospective on the occasion of Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary. It covers a number of topics, some of which may be relevant to the upcoming Wikipedia editing assignment. ''(Reposted from the January 25th discussion page, as it seems more appropriate here. - BrandonAndrzej)''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2011/01/110111_wikipedia_at_10.shtml

The rhetorical use of the euphemism of the monolithic corporation in the [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto] undermines the effectiveness its message. Thesis number two states, “Markets consist of human beings...” Last time I looked, so do corporations.

In fact corporations are highly organized social creatures with diverse internal cultures, rules, mores and recognized standards of behavior. They respond to a broad spectrum of internal and external influence. If only solving today’s problems were so easy as to point our finger and say “off with their heads.” The real challenge, however, is much more complicated and a matter of personal responsibility.

Corporations come in all flavors. Some are highly democratic. As requirements of participating in the public capital markets all have democratic institutions: a constitution (articles of incorporation), boards of directors, shareholders, external advocates and most importantly customers. The Manifesto takes the all too easy out of blaming the generic “them.” The truth is that the reason corporations are as they are today is because the majority of corporate stakeholders abdicate their responsibility to guide the direction of the organization through exercise of their enfranchisement as shareholders and customers.

The behavior of corporations is a function of ''our'' collective actions and inactions. We have cheap goods made by slave labor because in the exercise of our conspicuous consumption we don’t want to - or without sacrificing our consumption volume can’t afford to - pay the price of having the same goods manufactured by the un-oppressed. The result is that we send our dollars to evil places rather than fund the social infrastructure that improves the standard of living of more humane societies.

Further we have out-of-control executive salaries, unrestrained executive actions, boards of directors driven by motivations other than the interests of the shareholders and other unsavory corporate behaviors because we fail to fulfill our responsibilities. Too few read the prospectus, attend shareholder meetings, or even vote shares beyond granting proxy to the someone else. I am guilty as charged when like so many, I seek to maximize my ability to profit by pooling my finances in investment cartels while leaving decision making to fund managers, investment advisors and other members of the vested interest.

Many say we need more regulations. I say we have the regulations that we desire. This is true because through our collective actions we drive corporate investment decisions. If we did not want corporations to spend scarce investment dollars to employ the more than 45,000 lobbyists in Washington who water down and fight against regulation, the corporations would find other places to invest. If instead we used our purchasing power and shareholder votes to direct investment elsewhere, there it would flow.

The Icelandic version of Microsoft Windows mentioned in [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] proves the point. On the other hand our abdication of this power as Digital Borders expresses results in the fact that the, “[http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 technologies of control in China are essentially the same technologies designed to satisfy consumer demand for geographically tailored Internet products.]” Due in part to our marketplace behaviors, oppressors are given the tools they so effectively use as an unintended consequence of our desire for applications to tell us how many of our friends are in close proximity who might be interested in a game of beer pong.

Chasing our dollars and with our benign assent, corporations have followed the instruction we have given them. Let’s stop blaming “them;” for we are them and start taking responsibility for the results of our actions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 00:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoyed watching the BBC anniversay documentary on Wikipedia. As businesses start to utilize this media, I wonder how the controls put in place by Wikipedia for neutral content can possibly be effective. I compared an entry for the holding company for which the company where I am employed is a subsidiary and compared it to one of our competitors. The difference was substantial. The competitor's had a distinct advertising (promotion) flavor along with company's graphics on the right hand border of the page. My company's was a four sentence historical overview providing little relevant information to any potential customer or employee. After checking with our PR Department, I was told no one in the company had written the posting. They assume it was done by a third party contributor. Just by comparing these two companies, the lack of uniformity is readily apparent.--[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC) sjennings

Hello. First remark is concerning [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto]. These 3 'Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.' I think that big part of our current comminucation has a sound of 'message' or 'MS Outlook Email Sound' if you know what I mean. Sad, but true.

Another remark is about [http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace].'You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve.[...]...governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.' I think this is very good statement for discussion. I am not sure to what extend Internet shoudl be independent from real world. Should not be there governing rules? Should it be for intance ISP who decides what they do with my personal data, or information about what kind of webpages I visit, or even where am I located?We do not need any law for that?
We do not need Ecommerce directive or DMCA in US? I am not sure whether I get it right but to me it looks like declaration wanted to say somethink like we do not need them (nbot particular those ones but in general). Any suggestions?
--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I also inferred the lack of need for DMCA, copyright and general intellectual property regulation. I think we still have a lot of work to do in how the laws are applied, increased improvements in open source and open standards to help users. A system where the creative work itself is protected more so than the medium in which it is used.--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 20:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Principal ideas expressed “The Cluetrain Manifesto“ and „The Great Failure of Wikipedia” I have found in sharp contradiction. The “Cluetrainers” consider the conversation and trading of information and traverse of ideas over the Internet as the essence for present corporations, markets and cultures. On the other hand the author of “Great Failure of Wikipedia” considers gathering and structuring information through communication of masses over the Internet as a work of “wonks”, “twiddlers”, which amount to “ procedural whackjobs”.
The clash between these two ideological approaches to the essence of the Internet remind me challenges between the governance of majority expressed in democracy and democratic system and governance of elite represented by oligarchic system. These two philosophical, sociological and political approaches are well reasoned and analyzed in the work of Jose Ortega y Gasset “ The Revolt of the Masses” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Ortega_y_Gasset).
To make a short summary of this scholar ś ideas, only elite “content generators” formed by some “barriers of entry” could produces welfare “content” in all aspects of human society “the Internet”. I believe that this struggle would never have the winner. [[User:Zholakova|Zholakova]] 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the concept of a “borderless Internet,” the article [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] claims it is reflective of both government and consumer pressure for an Internet that conforms to their individual preferences and laws. I would also argue that such filtered content delivery also arose out of huge corporate demand. Yahoo! has a wealth of user data (geographic, demographic, behavioral, etc) at its disposal, and advertisers are willing to pay a premium to be able to leverage that. So, while a formidable blow to Internet freedom, Mr. Yang and his company have ultimately benefited greatly from the byproduct of their legal defeat, which is a highly profitable business in localized content delivery.

This also raises the controversial topic of how relevant is ''too'' relevant. Internet consumers are keenly aware that their personal information is being collected and repurposed, but it does not seem the boundaries are permanently drawn yet. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just had some initial comments before we discuss further in class. Digital technology and the Internet have revolutionized the cross-border communication and information sharing, and this has benefited everyone unimaginably. However, the Internet also has created many great issues and problems that are very serious and threatening (i.e. privacy issues, cyber-terrorism, support for terrorism and other criminal activities, etc.). In order to maximize/protect the benefits and minimize/eliminate damages caused by the Internet, I feel that law, regulation and censorship sometimes are necessary. Anarchy eventually leads to destruction, and I do not think the cyberspace is an exception. Thus, I was a bit uncomfortable with the ideas portrayed in either the [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] or the [http://www.cluetrain.com Cluetrain Manifesto]. Moreover, as discussed in the [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders], there are vast differences in laws, regulations, cultures and traditions among countries around the world, and they must be respected in the cyberspace as they are aimed to be as such in the “real world.” Through this course, I hope I can gain more ideas about the extent to which the Internet should be regulated and controlled by governments.[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a free, humanistic and borderless Internet expressed in the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace and Cluetrain Manifesto is simply romantic but naïve idealism. Certainly the Internet is a wonderfully powerful communication medium, but we must recognize that it stands upon the shoulders of television, radio and the various printed media. Egyptians are using twitter to challenge Hosni Mubarak’s authority in the same way Thomas Paine printed Common Sense to challenge the authority of King George III. But the Internet can just as easily be used as a tool of government to monitor and control its people. Benkler (The Wealth of Networks), Goldsmith and Wu (Digital Borders) understand the reality that government regulation of the Internet is a natural and inevitable process, and that it’s a messy business. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that it will be subject to both international and every sovereign state’s laws simultaneously. Of this there can be no doubt, as we have already seen Egypt’s “kill switch” in action. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris], You are right that there is a lot of “romantic but naïve idealism” expressed in many of the proclamations about what digital technologies mean to the world. Is it not true that most great movements have often had anthems with flowery rhetoric aimed at inspiring some who may not have acted to action? “[http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ We hold these truths to be self evident …,"] “[http://www.history.org/almanack/people/bios/biohen.cfm I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death …,"] and “[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY Ask not …"]?

Shouldn't we ask how we may learn from the evolution of “television, radio and the various printed media” and apply the lessons of those experiences in shaping the future? [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Benkler] pointed out how the early perception of, use and regulation of communications media still shape the way those technologies apply to the world today. In our discussions I hope we will leave ourselves open to the possibilities that the nature of digital technologies may make a difference. I hope we can free our thinking from preconceptions we may unknowingly hold as we ponder these questions and contribute to the frameworks for the future.

Take for example the idea of an Internet kill switch. Aside from arguing the merits of such an idea the question is: is it even a technical possibility? Paul Ford points out that, “[http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/what-could-possibly-go-wrong-internet-switch The last time someone could shut down the Internet was probably in 1969, when it consisted of two computers."] In fact within hours of the Egyptian government throwing the “kill switch,” in Cairo’s Tahir Square “[http://antonyloewenstein.com/2011/01/29/what-egyptian-uprising-says-about-the-desperate-desire-for-freedom/ nearby residents reportedly opened their home Wi-Fi networks to allow protesters to get online”.] As well, “[http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20029927-245.html activists were faxing WikiLeaks cables into Egypt to bypass the Internet blockade,”] external players [http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/49101/google-and-twitter-tag-team-for-egypt/ Twitter and Google] were teaming up to provide an alternative and many other factors were at play to provide a workaround for the people of Egypt. Is it not possible that the nature of digital technologies may be a force to push the needle that gauges where we stand at any moment on the spectrum between liberty and oppression more toward liberty thus justifying optimisim? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Chris that there exists a lot of idealism in the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Can a civilization exist without laws? There would be an absence of civility itself. We can't lose sight of the fact that there are humans that make up and are the driving force behind Cyberspace. The social human condition would not allow for a world that lacks intellectual property rights in any form. I still believe we have a lot of work to do in regards to intellectual property laws and creating platforms that not only protect the rights of the creator, but respect the digital evolution. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts regarding Wikipedia: Wikipedia presents itself as a "democratic entity” - one which gathers its content from users around the globe and allows everyone to freely participate. However, many observers (such as in the BBC Worldservice documentary) have noted that the majority Wikipedia's content is derived from a relatively small number of regular users. The picture painted is one of an oligarchy where a limited number of "elite" users control the content of the encyclopedia via enforcement strict of policy rules, essentially erecting barriers to casual users. I am trying to reconcile this picture with that painted by Jason's Scott's "Great Failure of Wikipedia", in he describes a small number of "content generators" under siege from a great mass of "wonks, twiddlers, and procedural whackjobs" who are essentially negative contributors to the site. "Content generators" become "content defenders", with only those few contributors willing to put extensive effort into protecting their content actually seeing that content become (more or less) permanent additions to the encyclopedia. I am unsure of how accurate this depiction (or either depiction, for that matter) is... The central question here is whether the "elite" users generating the majority of the content are also the users most active in enforcing policy/policing entry barriers, or whether these roles are largely divided between separate user populations. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Some (pessimistic) links regarding social networking technologies and political change:
First, a blog post dismissive of the impact of the internet and social networks in the current crisis in Egypt:
"Tell Mubarak we don't need his damn internet" http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2011/blog1102c.htm
Second, a Slate Magazine book review looking at the way politically repressive regimes are using the internet and social networks to their advantage:
Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion http://www.slate.com/id/2281743/
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2011-02-08T20:04:47Z

Dreed07: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 1'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: Due to snow in Cambridge, class is canceled today. To make up for the cancellation, we'll be adding an hour to each of the next two class sessions (February 8 and 15).'''</div>
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 propose and develop one framework for 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.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (Read pages 379-396. The rest of this chapter expands the discussions of each layer in more detail, if you want to read more about them)

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet - Chapters 1 & 2]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

For people interested in a more technical primer on the architecture of the web, how email works, etc. check out ethan zuckerman and andrew mclaughlin's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

Some fred turner resources: [http://blip.tv/file/125930 video presentation], [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/12/01/from-counterculture-to-cyberculture-the-rise-of-digital-utopianism/ audio presentation], and [http://www.stanford.edu/group/fredturner/cgi-bin/drupal/ homepage]

[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium Citizendium]

Jason Scott on [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808 The Great Failure of Wikipedia] (2004)

[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/012611-internet-providers-are-the-new.html Internet providers are the new secret police, says report]

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List]

[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-fail Open Source #FAIL]

"For all its allure, the Internet can be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets." - US Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the U.S. Homeland Security Committee [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352375/Plan-Obama-kill-switch-powers-cut-internet-access-event-national-cyber-crisis.html Call to give Obama 'kill switch' powers to cut internet access in the event of national cyber crisis] 1 Feb 2011

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30shane.html Spotlight Again Falls on Web Tools and Change - article on how repressive regimes can use the internet and new media to their advantage]

== 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:RebekahHeacock|RebekahHeacock]] 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)'''</div>

Reading the Cluetrain Manifesto, I could not help but to remember what Henry Ford said, “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.” Clearly, this kind of top-down approach no longer has its place in the modern world. The fact that the Internet has changed the way companies interact with their customers is as widespread as undeniable. However, I want to remark that the lack of universal access to technology has actually marginalized those consumers without the means or skills of getting themselves heard through the cyberspace more ever than before. Businesses are adapting quickly to the new changes in the market. However, I want to question, how well are we, as a society, sharing the benefits of technology to those who do not have access? [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Cluetrain Manifesto blurs the lines between who is considered the market, employee, corporation and the communication between the three. A key point in my mind is that each one has a human voice despite it's position, so many theses are fundamentally flawed. Trust builds loyalty in markets, online markets are not immune to advertisements. Online advertising is changing in dramatic, more personal ways as uses of the Internet evolve.--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

While reading this Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace i can not shake a thought of Technological Singularity which is supposed to come by the earliest estimates around the year 2020... Science fiction or a true possibility? --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia offers knowledge on extensive topics, holding the better model, is there not a huge concern that there is no longer postings of validated facts versus mere opinion?

Here is a link to the BBC World Service documentary Wikipedia at 10 - a 22.5 minute retrospective on the occasion of Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary. It covers a number of topics, some of which may be relevant to the upcoming Wikipedia editing assignment. ''(Reposted from the January 25th discussion page, as it seems more appropriate here. - BrandonAndrzej)''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2011/01/110111_wikipedia_at_10.shtml

The rhetorical use of the euphemism of the monolithic corporation in the [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto] undermines the effectiveness its message. Thesis number two states, “Markets consist of human beings...” Last time I looked, so do corporations.

In fact corporations are highly organized social creatures with diverse internal cultures, rules, mores and recognized standards of behavior. They respond to a broad spectrum of internal and external influence. If only solving today’s problems were so easy as to point our finger and say “off with their heads.” The real challenge, however, is much more complicated and a matter of personal responsibility.

Corporations come in all flavors. Some are highly democratic. As requirements of participating in the public capital markets all have democratic institutions: a constitution (articles of incorporation), boards of directors, shareholders, external advocates and most importantly customers. The Manifesto takes the all too easy out of blaming the generic “them.” The truth is that the reason corporations are as they are today is because the majority of corporate stakeholders abdicate their responsibility to guide the direction of the organization through exercise of their enfranchisement as shareholders and customers.

The behavior of corporations is a function of ''our'' collective actions and inactions. We have cheap goods made by slave labor because in the exercise of our conspicuous consumption we don’t want to - or without sacrificing our consumption volume can’t afford to - pay the price of having the same goods manufactured by the un-oppressed. The result is that we send our dollars to evil places rather than fund the social infrastructure that improves the standard of living of more humane societies.

Further we have out-of-control executive salaries, unrestrained executive actions, boards of directors driven by motivations other than the interests of the shareholders and other unsavory corporate behaviors because we fail to fulfill our responsibilities. Too few read the prospectus, attend shareholder meetings, or even vote shares beyond granting proxy to the someone else. I am guilty as charged when like so many, I seek to maximize my ability to profit by pooling my finances in investment cartels while leaving decision making to fund managers, investment advisors and other members of the vested interest.

Many say we need more regulations. I say we have the regulations that we desire. This is true because through our collective actions we drive corporate investment decisions. If we did not want corporations to spend scarce investment dollars to employ the more than 45,000 lobbyists in Washington who water down and fight against regulation, the corporations would find other places to invest. If instead we used our purchasing power and shareholder votes to direct investment elsewhere, there it would flow.

The Icelandic version of Microsoft Windows mentioned in [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] proves the point. On the other hand our abdication of this power as Digital Borders expresses results in the fact that the, “[http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 technologies of control in China are essentially the same technologies designed to satisfy consumer demand for geographically tailored Internet products.]” Due in part to our marketplace behaviors, oppressors are given the tools they so effectively use as an unintended consequence of our desire for applications to tell us how many of our friends are in close proximity who might be interested in a game of beer pong.

Chasing our dollars and with our benign assent, corporations have followed the instruction we have given them. Let’s stop blaming “them;” for we are them and start taking responsibility for the results of our actions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 00:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoyed watching the BBC anniversay documentary on Wikipedia. As businesses start to utilize this media, I wonder how the controls put in place by Wikipedia for neutral content can possibly be effective. I compared an entry for the holding company for which the company where I am employed is a subsidiary and compared it to one of our competitors. The difference was substantial. The competitor's had a distinct advertising (promotion) flavor along with company's graphics on the right hand border of the page. My company's was a four sentence historical overview providing little relevant information to any potential customer or employee. After checking with our PR Department, I was told no one in the company had written the posting. They assume it was done by a third party contributor. Just by comparing these two companies, the lack of uniformity is readily apparent.--[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC) sjennings

Hello. First remark is concerning [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto]. These 3 'Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.' I think that big part of our current comminucation has a sound of 'message' or 'MS Outlook Email Sound' if you know what I mean. Sad, but true.

Another remark is about [http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace].'You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve.[...]...governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.' I think this is very good statement for discussion. I am not sure to what extend Internet shoudl be independent from real world. Should not be there governing rules? Should it be for intance ISP who decides what they do with my personal data, or information about what kind of webpages I visit, or even where am I located?We do not need any law for that?
We do not need Ecommerce directive or DMCA in US? I am not sure whether I get it right but to me it looks like declaration wanted to say somethink like we do not need them (nbot particular those ones but in general). Any suggestions?
--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Principal ideas expressed “The Cluetrain Manifesto“ and „The Great Failure of Wikipedia” I have found in sharp contradiction. The “Cluetrainers” consider the conversation and trading of information and traverse of ideas over the Internet as the essence for present corporations, markets and cultures. On the other hand the author of “Great Failure of Wikipedia” considers gathering and structuring information through communication of masses over the Internet as a work of “wonks”, “twiddlers”, which amount to “ procedural whackjobs”.
The clash between these two ideological approaches to the essence of the Internet remind me challenges between the governance of majority expressed in democracy and democratic system and governance of elite represented by oligarchic system. These two philosophical, sociological and political approaches are well reasoned and analyzed in the work of Jose Ortega y Gasset “ The Revolt of the Masses” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Ortega_y_Gasset).
To make a short summary of this scholar ś ideas, only elite “content generators” formed by some “barriers of entry” could produces welfare “content” in all aspects of human society “the Internet”. I believe that this struggle would never have the winner. [[User:Zholakova|Zholakova]] 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the concept of a “borderless Internet,” the article [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] claims it is reflective of both government and consumer pressure for an Internet that conforms to their individual preferences and laws. I would also argue that such filtered content delivery also arose out of huge corporate demand. Yahoo! has a wealth of user data (geographic, demographic, behavioral, etc) at its disposal, and advertisers are willing to pay a premium to be able to leverage that. So, while a formidable blow to Internet freedom, Mr. Yang and his company have ultimately benefited greatly from the byproduct of their legal defeat, which is a highly profitable business in localized content delivery.

This also raises the controversial topic of how relevant is ''too'' relevant. Internet consumers are keenly aware that their personal information is being collected and repurposed, but it does not seem the boundaries are permanently drawn yet. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just had some initial comments before we discuss further in class. Digital technology and the Internet have revolutionized the cross-border communication and information sharing, and this has benefited everyone unimaginably. However, the Internet also has created many great issues and problems that are very serious and threatening (i.e. privacy issues, cyber-terrorism, support for terrorism and other criminal activities, etc.). In order to maximize/protect the benefits and minimize/eliminate damages caused by the Internet, I feel that law, regulation and censorship sometimes are necessary. Anarchy eventually leads to destruction, and I do not think the cyberspace is an exception. Thus, I was a bit uncomfortable with the ideas portrayed in either the [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] or the [http://www.cluetrain.com Cluetrain Manifesto]. Moreover, as discussed in the [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders], there are vast differences in laws, regulations, cultures and traditions among countries around the world, and they must be respected in the cyberspace as they are aimed to be as such in the “real world.” Through this course, I hope I can gain more ideas about the extent to which the Internet should be regulated and controlled by governments.[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a free, humanistic and borderless Internet expressed in the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace and Cluetrain Manifesto is simply romantic but naïve idealism. Certainly the Internet is a wonderfully powerful communication medium, but we must recognize that it stands upon the shoulders of television, radio and the various printed media. Egyptians are using twitter to challenge Hosni Mubarak’s authority in the same way Thomas Paine printed Common Sense to challenge the authority of King George III. But the Internet can just as easily be used as a tool of government to monitor and control its people. Benkler (The Wealth of Networks), Goldsmith and Wu (Digital Borders) understand the reality that government regulation of the Internet is a natural and inevitable process, and that it’s a messy business. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that it will be subject to both international and every sovereign state’s laws simultaneously. Of this there can be no doubt, as we have already seen Egypt’s “kill switch” in action. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris], You are right that there is a lot of “romantic but naïve idealism” expressed in many of the proclamations about what digital technologies mean to the world. Is it not true that most great movements have often had anthems with flowery rhetoric aimed at inspiring some who may not have acted to action? “[http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ We hold these truths to be self evident …,"] “[http://www.history.org/almanack/people/bios/biohen.cfm I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death …,"] and “[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY Ask not …"]?

Shouldn't we ask how we may learn from the evolution of “television, radio and the various printed media” and apply the lessons of those experiences in shaping the future? [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Benkler] pointed out how the early perception of, use and regulation of communications media still shape the way those technologies apply to the world today. In our discussions I hope we will leave ourselves open to the possibilities that the nature of digital technologies may make a difference. I hope we can free our thinking from preconceptions we may unknowingly hold as we ponder these questions and contribute to the frameworks for the future.

Take for example the idea of an Internet kill switch. Aside from arguing the merits of such an idea the question is: is it even a technical possibility? Paul Ford points out that, “[http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/what-could-possibly-go-wrong-internet-switch The last time someone could shut down the Internet was probably in 1969, when it consisted of two computers."] In fact within hours of the Egyptian government throwing the “kill switch,” in Cairo’s Tahir Square “[http://antonyloewenstein.com/2011/01/29/what-egyptian-uprising-says-about-the-desperate-desire-for-freedom/ nearby residents reportedly opened their home Wi-Fi networks to allow protesters to get online”.] As well, “[http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20029927-245.html activists were faxing WikiLeaks cables into Egypt to bypass the Internet blockade,”] external players [http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/49101/google-and-twitter-tag-team-for-egypt/ Twitter and Google] were teaming up to provide an alternative and many other factors were at play to provide a workaround for the people of Egypt. Is it not possible that the nature of digital technologies may be a force to push the needle that gauges where we stand at any moment on the spectrum between liberty and oppression more toward liberty thus justifying optimisim? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Chris that there exists a lot of idealism in the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Can a civilization exist without laws? There would be an absence of civility itself. We can't lose sight of the fact that there are humans that make up and are the driving force behind Cyberspace. The social human condition would not allow for a world that lacks intellectual property rights in any form. I still believe we have a lot of work to do in regards to intellectual property laws and creating platforms that not only protect the rights of the creator, but respect the digital evolution. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts regarding Wikipedia: Wikipedia presents itself as a "democratic entity” - one which gathers its content from users around the globe and allows everyone to freely participate. However, many observers (such as in the BBC Worldservice documentary) have noted that the majority Wikipedia's content is derived from a relatively small number of regular users. The picture painted is one of an oligarchy where a limited number of "elite" users control the content of the encyclopedia via enforcement strict of policy rules, essentially erecting barriers to casual users. I am trying to reconcile this picture with that painted by Jason's Scott's "Great Failure of Wikipedia", in he describes a small number of "content generators" under siege from a great mass of "wonks, twiddlers, and procedural whackjobs" who are essentially negative contributors to the site. "Content generators" become "content defenders", with only those few contributors willing to put extensive effort into protecting their content actually seeing that content become (more or less) permanent additions to the encyclopedia. I am unsure of how accurate this depiction (or either depiction, for that matter) is... The central question here is whether the "elite" users generating the majority of the content are also the users most active in enforcing policy/policing entry barriers, or whether these roles are largely divided between separate user populations. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Some (pessimistic) links regarding social networking technologies and political change:
First, a blog post dismissive of the impact of the internet and social networks in the current crisis in Egypt:
"Tell Mubarak we don't need his damn internet" http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2011/blog1102c.htm
Second, a Slate Magazine book review looking at the way politically repressive regimes are using the internet and social networks to their advantage:
Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion http://www.slate.com/id/2281743/
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2011-02-08T19:56:32Z

Dreed07: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 1'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: Due to snow in Cambridge, class is canceled today. To make up for the cancellation, we'll be adding an hour to each of the next two class sessions (February 8 and 15).'''</div>
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 propose and develop one framework for 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.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (Read pages 379-396. The rest of this chapter expands the discussions of each layer in more detail, if you want to read more about them)

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet - Chapters 1 & 2]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

For people interested in a more technical primer on the architecture of the web, how email works, etc. check out ethan zuckerman and andrew mclaughlin's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

Some fred turner resources: [http://blip.tv/file/125930 video presentation], [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/12/01/from-counterculture-to-cyberculture-the-rise-of-digital-utopianism/ audio presentation], and [http://www.stanford.edu/group/fredturner/cgi-bin/drupal/ homepage]

[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium Citizendium]

Jason Scott on [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808 The Great Failure of Wikipedia] (2004)

[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/012611-internet-providers-are-the-new.html Internet providers are the new secret police, says report]

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List]

[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-fail Open Source #FAIL]

"For all its allure, the Internet can be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets." - US Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the U.S. Homeland Security Committee [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352375/Plan-Obama-kill-switch-powers-cut-internet-access-event-national-cyber-crisis.html Call to give Obama 'kill switch' powers to cut internet access in the event of national cyber crisis] 1 Feb 2011

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30shane.html Spotlight Again Falls on Web Tools and Change - article on how repressive regimes can use the internet and new media to their advantage]

== 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:RebekahHeacock|RebekahHeacock]] 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)'''</div>

Reading the Cluetrain Manifesto, I could not help but to remember what Henry Ford said, “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.” Clearly, this kind of top-down approach no longer has its place in the modern world. The fact that the Internet has changed the way companies interact with their customers is as widespread as undeniable. However, I want to remark that the lack of universal access to technology has actually marginalized those consumers without the means or skills of getting themselves heard through the cyberspace more ever than before. Businesses are adapting quickly to the new changes in the market. However, I want to question, how well are we, as a society, sharing the benefits of technology to those who do not have access? [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

While reading this Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace i can not shake a thought of Technological Singularity which is supposed to come by the earliest estimates around the year 2020... Science fiction or a true possibility? --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia offers knowledge on extensive topics, holding the better model, is there not a huge concern that there is no longer postings of validated facts versus mere opinion?

Here is a link to the BBC World Service documentary Wikipedia at 10 - a 22.5 minute retrospective on the occasion of Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary. It covers a number of topics, some of which may be relevant to the upcoming Wikipedia editing assignment. ''(Reposted from the January 25th discussion page, as it seems more appropriate here. - BrandonAndrzej)''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2011/01/110111_wikipedia_at_10.shtml

The rhetorical use of the euphemism of the monolithic corporation in the [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto] undermines the effectiveness its message. Thesis number two states, “Markets consist of human beings...” Last time I looked, so do corporations.

In fact corporations are highly organized social creatures with diverse internal cultures, rules, mores and recognized standards of behavior. They respond to a broad spectrum of internal and external influence. If only solving today’s problems were so easy as to point our finger and say “off with their heads.” The real challenge, however, is much more complicated and a matter of personal responsibility.

Corporations come in all flavors. Some are highly democratic. As requirements of participating in the public capital markets all have democratic institutions: a constitution (articles of incorporation), boards of directors, shareholders, external advocates and most importantly customers. The Manifesto takes the all too easy out of blaming the generic “them.” The truth is that the reason corporations are as they are today is because the majority of corporate stakeholders abdicate their responsibility to guide the direction of the organization through exercise of their enfranchisement as shareholders and customers.

The behavior of corporations is a function of ''our'' collective actions and inactions. We have cheap goods made by slave labor because in the exercise of our conspicuous consumption we don’t want to - or without sacrificing our consumption volume can’t afford to - pay the price of having the same goods manufactured by the un-oppressed. The result is that we send our dollars to evil places rather than fund the social infrastructure that improves the standard of living of more humane societies.

Further we have out-of-control executive salaries, unrestrained executive actions, boards of directors driven by motivations other than the interests of the shareholders and other unsavory corporate behaviors because we fail to fulfill our responsibilities. Too few read the prospectus, attend shareholder meetings, or even vote shares beyond granting proxy to the someone else. I am guilty as charged when like so many, I seek to maximize my ability to profit by pooling my finances in investment cartels while leaving decision making to fund managers, investment advisors and other members of the vested interest.

Many say we need more regulations. I say we have the regulations that we desire. This is true because through our collective actions we drive corporate investment decisions. If we did not want corporations to spend scarce investment dollars to employ the more than 45,000 lobbyists in Washington who water down and fight against regulation, the corporations would find other places to invest. If instead we used our purchasing power and shareholder votes to direct investment elsewhere, there it would flow.

The Icelandic version of Microsoft Windows mentioned in [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] proves the point. On the other hand our abdication of this power as Digital Borders expresses results in the fact that the, “[http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 technologies of control in China are essentially the same technologies designed to satisfy consumer demand for geographically tailored Internet products.]” Due in part to our marketplace behaviors, oppressors are given the tools they so effectively use as an unintended consequence of our desire for applications to tell us how many of our friends are in close proximity who might be interested in a game of beer pong.

Chasing our dollars and with our benign assent, corporations have followed the instruction we have given them. Let’s stop blaming “them;” for we are them and start taking responsibility for the results of our actions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 00:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoyed watching the BBC anniversay documentary on Wikipedia. As businesses start to utilize this media, I wonder how the controls put in place by Wikipedia for neutral content can possibly be effective. I compared an entry for the holding company for which the company where I am employed is a subsidiary and compared it to one of our competitors. The difference was substantial. The competitor's had a distinct advertising (promotion) flavor along with company's graphics on the right hand border of the page. My company's was a four sentence historical overview providing little relevant information to any potential customer or employee. After checking with our PR Department, I was told no one in the company had written the posting. They assume it was done by a third party contributor. Just by comparing these two companies, the lack of uniformity is readily apparent.--[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC) sjennings

Hello. First remark is concerning [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto]. These 3 'Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.' I think that big part of our current comminucation has a sound of 'message' or 'MS Outlook Email Sound' if you know what I mean. Sad, but true.

Another remark is about [http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace].'You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve.[...]...governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.' I think this is very good statement for discussion. I am not sure to what extend Internet shoudl be independent from real world. Should not be there governing rules? Should it be for intance ISP who decides what they do with my personal data, or information about what kind of webpages I visit, or even where am I located?We do not need any law for that?
We do not need Ecommerce directive or DMCA in US? I am not sure whether I get it right but to me it looks like declaration wanted to say somethink like we do not need them (nbot particular those ones but in general). Any suggestions?
--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Principal ideas expressed “The Cluetrain Manifesto“ and „The Great Failure of Wikipedia” I have found in sharp contradiction. The “Cluetrainers” consider the conversation and trading of information and traverse of ideas over the Internet as the essence for present corporations, markets and cultures. On the other hand the author of “Great Failure of Wikipedia” considers gathering and structuring information through communication of masses over the Internet as a work of “wonks”, “twiddlers”, which amount to “ procedural whackjobs”.
The clash between these two ideological approaches to the essence of the Internet remind me challenges between the governance of majority expressed in democracy and democratic system and governance of elite represented by oligarchic system. These two philosophical, sociological and political approaches are well reasoned and analyzed in the work of Jose Ortega y Gasset “ The Revolt of the Masses” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Ortega_y_Gasset).
To make a short summary of this scholar ś ideas, only elite “content generators” formed by some “barriers of entry” could produces welfare “content” in all aspects of human society “the Internet”. I believe that this struggle would never have the winner. [[User:Zholakova|Zholakova]] 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the concept of a “borderless Internet,” the article [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] claims it is reflective of both government and consumer pressure for an Internet that conforms to their individual preferences and laws. I would also argue that such filtered content delivery also arose out of huge corporate demand. Yahoo! has a wealth of user data (geographic, demographic, behavioral, etc) at its disposal, and advertisers are willing to pay a premium to be able to leverage that. So, while a formidable blow to Internet freedom, Mr. Yang and his company have ultimately benefited greatly from the byproduct of their legal defeat, which is a highly profitable business in localized content delivery.

This also raises the controversial topic of how relevant is ''too'' relevant. Internet consumers are keenly aware that their personal information is being collected and repurposed, but it does not seem the boundaries are permanently drawn yet. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just had some initial comments before we discuss further in class. Digital technology and the Internet have revolutionized the cross-border communication and information sharing, and this has benefited everyone unimaginably. However, the Internet also has created many great issues and problems that are very serious and threatening (i.e. privacy issues, cyber-terrorism, support for terrorism and other criminal activities, etc.). In order to maximize/protect the benefits and minimize/eliminate damages caused by the Internet, I feel that law, regulation and censorship sometimes are necessary. Anarchy eventually leads to destruction, and I do not think the cyberspace is an exception. Thus, I was a bit uncomfortable with the ideas portrayed in either the [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] or the [http://www.cluetrain.com Cluetrain Manifesto]. Moreover, as discussed in the [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders], there are vast differences in laws, regulations, cultures and traditions among countries around the world, and they must be respected in the cyberspace as they are aimed to be as such in the “real world.” Through this course, I hope I can gain more ideas about the extent to which the Internet should be regulated and controlled by governments.[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a free, humanistic and borderless Internet expressed in the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace and Cluetrain Manifesto is simply romantic but naïve idealism. Certainly the Internet is a wonderfully powerful communication medium, but we must recognize that it stands upon the shoulders of television, radio and the various printed media. Egyptians are using twitter to challenge Hosni Mubarak’s authority in the same way Thomas Paine printed Common Sense to challenge the authority of King George III. But the Internet can just as easily be used as a tool of government to monitor and control its people. Benkler (The Wealth of Networks), Goldsmith and Wu (Digital Borders) understand the reality that government regulation of the Internet is a natural and inevitable process, and that it’s a messy business. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that it will be subject to both international and every sovereign state’s laws simultaneously. Of this there can be no doubt, as we have already seen Egypt’s “kill switch” in action. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris], You are right that there is a lot of “romantic but naïve idealism” expressed in many of the proclamations about what digital technologies mean to the world. Is it not true that most great movements have often had anthems with flowery rhetoric aimed at inspiring some who may not have acted to action? “[http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ We hold these truths to be self evident …,"] “[http://www.history.org/almanack/people/bios/biohen.cfm I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death …,"] and “[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY Ask not …"]?

Shouldn't we ask how we may learn from the evolution of “television, radio and the various printed media” and apply the lessons of those experiences in shaping the future? [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Benkler] pointed out how the early perception of, use and regulation of communications media still shape the way those technologies apply to the world today. In our discussions I hope we will leave ourselves open to the possibilities that the nature of digital technologies may make a difference. I hope we can free our thinking from preconceptions we may unknowingly hold as we ponder these questions and contribute to the frameworks for the future.

Take for example the idea of an Internet kill switch. Aside from arguing the merits of such an idea the question is: is it even a technical possibility? Paul Ford points out that, “[http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/what-could-possibly-go-wrong-internet-switch The last time someone could shut down the Internet was probably in 1969, when it consisted of two computers."] In fact within hours of the Egyptian government throwing the “kill switch,” in Cairo’s Tahir Square “[http://antonyloewenstein.com/2011/01/29/what-egyptian-uprising-says-about-the-desperate-desire-for-freedom/ nearby residents reportedly opened their home Wi-Fi networks to allow protesters to get online”.] As well, “[http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20029927-245.html activists were faxing WikiLeaks cables into Egypt to bypass the Internet blockade,”] external players [http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/49101/google-and-twitter-tag-team-for-egypt/ Twitter and Google] were teaming up to provide an alternative and many other factors were at play to provide a workaround for the people of Egypt. Is it not possible that the nature of digital technologies may be a force to push the needle that gauges where we stand at any moment on the spectrum between liberty and oppression more toward liberty thus justifying optimisim? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Chris that there exists a lot of idealism in the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Can a civilization exist without laws? There would be an absence of civility itself. We can't lose sight of the fact that there are humans that make up and are the driving force behind Cyberspace. The social human condition would not allow for a world that lacks intellectual property rights in any form. I still believe we have a lot of work to do in regards to intellectual property laws and creating platforms that not only protect the rights of the creator, but respect the digital evolution. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts regarding Wikipedia: Wikipedia presents itself as a "democratic entity” - one which gathers its content from users around the globe and allows everyone to freely participate. However, many observers (such as in the BBC Worldservice documentary) have noted that the majority Wikipedia's content is derived from a relatively small number of regular users. The picture painted is one of an oligarchy where a limited number of "elite" users control the content of the encyclopedia via enforcement strict of policy rules, essentially erecting barriers to casual users. I am trying to reconcile this picture with that painted by Jason's Scott's "Great Failure of Wikipedia", in he describes a small number of "content generators" under siege from a great mass of "wonks, twiddlers, and procedural whackjobs" who are essentially negative contributors to the site. "Content generators" become "content defenders", with only those few contributors willing to put extensive effort into protecting their content actually seeing that content become (more or less) permanent additions to the encyclopedia. I am unsure of how accurate this depiction (or either depiction, for that matter) is... The central question here is whether the "elite" users generating the majority of the content are also the users most active in enforcing policy/policing entry barriers, or whether these roles are largely divided between separate user populations. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Some (pessimistic) links regarding social networking technologies and political change:
First, a blog post dismissive of the impact of the internet and social networks in the current crisis in Egypt:
"Tell Mubarak we don't need his damn internet" http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2011/blog1102c.htm
Second, a Slate Magazine book review looking at the way politically repressive regimes are using the internet and social networks to their advantage:
Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion http://www.slate.com/id/2281743/
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2011-01-25T20:13:12Z

Dreed07: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''January 25'''

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. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to 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") ==

Part I

To frame the issues we will be talking about in this class and to get the discussion going, we'll start with the recent controversy involving [http://wikileaks.ch Wikileaks]. Take some time to read through the articles below. Come to class prepared to answer the following questions and to pose some questions of your own.

* What is Wikileaks? Is it a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?
* Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
* What kind of arguments would you make to support your position one way or the other?
* What was the U.S.'s (and the world's) response to Wikileaks' disclosure of diplomatic cables?
* What are the legal and/or free speech implications involved in the decision by Amazon to stop hosting the Wikileaks site?
* What do you think the debate concerning Wikileaks shows about the nature of the Internet?

Part II

* What are the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies?
In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/ MIT Technology Review: Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks]
* [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703785704575643431883607708.html# Wall Street Journal: To Publish Leaks Or Not to Publish?]
* [http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/03/the_net_s_soft_underbelly/index.html Salon: Online, the censors are scoring big wins]
* [http://gigaom.com/2010/12/04/like-it-or-not-wikileaks-is-a-media-entity/ GigaOm: Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks Guardian: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice]

== Optional Readings ==
* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/amazon-and-wikileaks-first-amendment-only-strong EFF: Amazon and WikiLeaks - Online Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary]
* [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/ Wired: Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation]
* [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks Salon: WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets]
* [http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/ Clay Shirky: Wikileaks and the Long Haul]
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/julius-baer-bank-and-trust-v-wikileaks Citizen Media Law Project: Julius Baer Bank and Trust v. Wikileaks]
* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2010/12/08/radio-berkman-171/ MediaBerkman: Wikileaks and the Information Wars]
* [http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-02/opinion/mackinnon.wikileaks.amazon_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-lieberman-youtube?_s=PM:OPINION Rebecca MacKinnon: WikiLeaks, Amazon and the new threat to internet speech]
* Coverage of the cables themselves by the NYT [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html/], Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables], Der Spiegel [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
''The most significant changes and challenges brought on by digital technologies.''

- Your ideas here...

Improvements in digital technologies and the pace at which they are happening are making it increasingly more difficult for companies to innovate and compete. Investing in research initiatives are at the forefront while still trying to devote resources to building that next biggest thing that will reach the largest number of users.--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the biggest changes associated with digital technologies have to do with communication. Everything from the way we interact with each other on a social level to the way that businesses and governments are conducted has been changed with the advancements of digital technology. More time is spent communicating digitally than in person; people are spending more time in online communities than their physical communities. The world is rapidly becoming a smaller place; it’s easier, cheaper, and faster to communicate with people around the world by email, texting, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, ect. You can instantly exchange ideas/knowledge with people and broadcast your opinions. Furthermore, there is more pressure to keep up with the rapidly changing communication technologies (for social or business purposes) for fear of being left behind. [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 19:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital technology not only changes how we get information, but how we relate as individuals, how companies do business and communicate with customers, employees, and investors, and how citizens relate and interact with their governments. Other have commented on privacy and censorship concerns, but the effect on business and the challenges a business faces with this communication and information boom has left many corporations scrambling. If incorrect information is disseminated on the web, a business is not as free as an individual to respond (if it can even do so quickly enough). Outdated government regulation enacted before the digital world was created can work to restrict how a company responds or has dialogue with the misinformed disseminators.

“Today we can influence each other more easily than ever before because our media is digital, it can reach anything that has a screen. And nearly anything with a screen can also be published from — we have a two way media.” [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/will-a-fragmented-media-lead-to-a-flowering-of-culture/971]

In thinking about the Internet as a medium, I believe the most profound changes derived from the shift to digital media is the introduction of a communication stream that is now (1) highly fragmented, (2) immediate, and (3) conversational in nature.

# We’ve evolved from a finite and more easy to regulate roster of tens/hundreds of traditional news media sources, to billions of websites. Today, the average citizen has a public voice, forcing us to challenge our notions of what is considered “journalism.” There are both opportunities (i.e., innovative thought and talent can emerge) and challenges (i.e., inundation, how to regulate, varied levels of credibility, etc.) inherent in this kind of landscape.
# Additionally, the pace of media consumption has become extremely rapid. We’ve become a culture that is accustomed to the instant accessibility of information.
# Finally, media is now social. The concept of “wiki”-based information sources means that we can interact with the information we consume, and the viral nature of the Internet lends to an ease of content ‘shareability’. Media communication is no longer a one-way stream. -- [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the most significant challenges we face moving forward with regard to digital technology is the security. Not just private citizens but governments and corporations around the world are becoming more heavily dependent on it. Consequences of any major digital disaster (i.e. caused by cyber-terrorism or any unexpected failure) could be severe to an unimaginable level as the digital world gets more complex and interdependent within. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Edwardshinp regarding security. It's not just an issue of security of financial data for transactions, but we are looking at national security, corporate espionage, etc. Anything where we're engaging in the sharing of information. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the most significant challenges is defining what constitutes privacy of users. Facebook continually redefines the concept of what information is private for its users. As we get more social and increases in attempts by online organizations to bring a more personal experience to the user, this will continue to be a challenge. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As dreed07 said, I think the same. PRIVACY. I would say lack of privacy. --[[User:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

* [http://www.google.org/flutrends/ Google Flu Trends]

Google has stuck into out lives quite firmly. I mean, than Google predict something better than government entities (CDC) just by running an algorithm and analyzing few searches... On some level that is the best example of how dependent on the Internet we became. I am not saying that's a bad thing, people before me told the same thing about electricity. Times are changing and that is a progress none the less. But shouldn't we be a little more careful, stop for a second and have a look on what we were actually doing for the last 20 years? Can the Internet be our own Frankenstein monster? :) --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

''Please use this space for comments/discussion you would like to share with the rest of the class.''

* [http://pressthink.org/2010/07/the-afghanistan-war-logs-released-by-wikileaks-the-worlds-first-stateless-news-organization/ The World's First Stateless News Organization]
* [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html Russia's Own WikiLeaks Takes Off]
The idea of "Stateless News Organizations" seems to be getting around... In my country though it's a little less sophisticated... --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Rosen’s prediction of the public’s reaction to the release of the Afghanistan War logs was spot on. These logs, in my opinion, did not receive enough attention or create the amount of outrage they deserved. Because they exposed a distasteful problem, an uncomfortable public chose to turn a blind eye. --[[User:Jedmonds|Jedmonds]] 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

--------

“Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?” IMO Wikileaks is none of the above. What Wikileaks can be described as is one of several recent examples of the ways in which communications technologies are fundamentally changing the nature of life on the planet. It’s part of an incomplete definition that will be building in complexity for some time into the future.

We live in an environment today in which the sum total of human experience virtually floats in the air around us. Need directions, google it. Want to see what it will look like when you turn the corner at the next intersection, click to a 360 degree view. Wish to know what historical figure may have lived in that ancient building by the park, if there isn’t today, sometime in the near future there will be a website, wiki, webcam, historical archive, building plans, public utility schematics, images of deeds, mortgage documents, tax information, holographic immersive experiences …

Piece by piece we are collectively constructing a virtual copy of the world. More than a copy, it contains layers from this moment stretching into the past and other contextual information impossible to obtain a mere few years ago.

I worry when it is said that Assange is not "about letting sunlight into the room so much as about throwing grit in the machine." [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/?a=f]. With that kind of philosophy it seems the opportunity to cause harm is far greater than that for good.

If on the other hand Wikileaks becomes or spawns places of free and open communications where transparency reigns and people of conviction can become free to disclose information that brings light into what today are dark crevices, we’ll all be better off. If not, we need to worry.

We need also worry about as Brandon Palmen says, “an incomplete and skewed portrayal of fact.” [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/12/05/truth-is-not-enough/] Actions that result from reliance on the incomplete picture will have unintended consequences. This is true whether a skewed view is intentional or as a function of where we are with respect to construction of the new virtual copy of our world.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks? The truth is that there will soon be many versions of Wikileaks with many different degrees of completeness ranging along a spectrum from purely altruistic to undeniably evil. It will be up to the individual and the establishment to decide on which version of reality we each choose to believe and act upon. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would contribute to what my classmates have alredy said about “Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?”.

I am sure there are number of people who would go for first, second and third option. It depends from which point of view we are looking at wikileaks. Sometimes term whistleblower or some intermediary is enough. I am sure that sometimes it is very questionable and wikileaks might be regarded as a journalist. I am sure that some politicians would also use terms like terrorist or criminal.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
I would answer with the question. Shoul we know about wrongdoing, killing, torture, corruption and tax evasion? Should we know what is really going on like in 'Collateral murder video'?

Those are arguments for wikileaks, however to put one argument why we could be afraid sometimes is following:
“Everybody will be leaking dirt on everybody,” Rassudov [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html]
This is what concerns me a bit. --[[User:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikileaks controversy is one of many examples how much the Internet has changed the entire world. I am sure I will develop more ideas about regulating or not regulating what is out there in the Internet as this class progresses, but in terms of Wikileaks, I am still fundamentally puzzled as to how those confidential information has eventually gotten into the hands of Assange or Wikileaks from the first place. My point is if the government wants to protect certain information, it is the government's own responsibility to do so via strict prevention measures. And I suspect that this fundamentally has nothing to do with the control of the Internet or digital media. You can't just blame and impose everything on Wikileaks because it was simply living up to its whole purpose of establishment--exposing certain types of political information to the public as a new digital medium (in this respect, I don't see any difference among Wikileaks, WSJ or NYT). I definitely do think that some of the information released through Wikileaks were inappropriate and damaging to the national security, which ultimately is not in the best interest of the American people. I support the government's non-disclosure of certain information for national interest and safety. One should not assume that government transparency is always desirable and healthy (as Assange does seem to believe so), even in a democratic society. However, imposing anything on Wikileaks, whether constitutionally legal or illegal (i.e. Lieberman's actions), is just not the right way to handle the "mess." Take out the roots of the problem whatever they are--not Wikileaks. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of months post-Wikileaks, and we're already seeing various similar organizations and entities (and even instances of leaking) crop up; while I don't support all of WikiLeaks' leaks necessarily, I do support the overall idea of information leaking; and in the case of, for example, the Palestine Papers (recently leaked to Al Jazeera), think that it can be very effective in demonstrating hypocrisy in governments.

I also take serious issue with the handling of WikiLeaks by American companies Amazon, Mastercard, PayPal, EasyDNS, and Tableau. All acted under potential pressure from Sen. Joe Lieberman, and the vast majority gave "copyright infringement" as their excuse, more or less. If we excuse this behavior in the instance of WikiLeaks, then we're headed down a slippery slope: Do we then excuse similar intermediary censorship when levied against a human rights organization?

I consider as the major challenge for E-industry the adoption of basic ethical standards/rules to be applicable for and followed by each provider as well as an user. Those rules should go far beyond and should be independent from a governance scope given by a local jurisdiction (something alike Wikipedia core content policies). The element of self-regulation emanated by the industry itself might be (a) an effective interpretation tool for numberless requests imposed for pursue of e-industry in particular jurisdiction (see link), (b) could prevent or diminish negative effects of state regulation or attempts of over-regulation or could help to constructively handle occurrence of case like Wikeleaks. Further, Internet as the major source of information and widely used communication tool has changed significantly quality and content of communication all over the world. This new phenomena already has and will have an overwhelming social and cultural impact on mankind and human interaction.

In my opinion, if we use the standard definition of what constitutes a "media organization" based on U.S. Code Title 2, Section 1602, a person or entity engaged in disseminating information to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other publication, radio, television, cable television, or other medium of mass communication; then Wikileaks is just that and would be entitled to protections as such. I don't agree with the way Wikileaks is carrying out it's mission on a philosophical level. There are other means that could be used to promote and encourage transparency in government without endangering people's lives. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

== Other Useful Links ==

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2011-01-25T19:33:39Z

Dreed07: /* Class Discussion */

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''January 25'''

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. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to 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") ==

Part I

To frame the issues we will be talking about in this class and to get the discussion going, we'll start with the recent controversy involving [http://wikileaks.ch Wikileaks]. Take some time to read through the articles below. Come to class prepared to answer the following questions and to pose some questions of your own.

* What is Wikileaks? Is it a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?
* Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
* What kind of arguments would you make to support your position one way or the other?
* What was the U.S.'s (and the world's) response to Wikileaks' disclosure of diplomatic cables?
* What are the legal and/or free speech implications involved in the decision by Amazon to stop hosting the Wikileaks site?
* What do you think the debate concerning Wikileaks shows about the nature of the Internet?

Part II

* What are the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies?
In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/ MIT Technology Review: Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks]
* [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703785704575643431883607708.html# Wall Street Journal: To Publish Leaks Or Not to Publish?]
* [http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/03/the_net_s_soft_underbelly/index.html Salon: Online, the censors are scoring big wins]
* [http://gigaom.com/2010/12/04/like-it-or-not-wikileaks-is-a-media-entity/ GigaOm: Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks Guardian: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice]

== Optional Readings ==
* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/amazon-and-wikileaks-first-amendment-only-strong EFF: Amazon and WikiLeaks - Online Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary]
* [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/ Wired: Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation]
* [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks Salon: WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets]
* [http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/ Clay Shirky: Wikileaks and the Long Haul]
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/julius-baer-bank-and-trust-v-wikileaks Citizen Media Law Project: Julius Baer Bank and Trust v. Wikileaks]
* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2010/12/08/radio-berkman-171/ MediaBerkman: Wikileaks and the Information Wars]
* Coverage of the cables themselves by the NYT [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html/], Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables], Der Spiegel [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
''The most significant changes and challenges brought on by digital technologies.''

- Your ideas here...

Improvements in digital technologies and the pace at which they are happening are making it increasingly more difficult for companies to innovate and compete. Investing in research initiatives are at the forefront while still trying to devote resources to building that next biggest thing that will reach the largest number of users.--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the biggest changes associated with digital technologies have to do with communication. Everything from the way we interact with each other on a social level to the way that businesses and governments are conducted has been changed with the advancements of digital technology. More time is spent communicating digitally than in person; people are spending more time in online communities than their physical communities. The world is rapidly becoming a smaller place; it’s easier, cheaper, and faster to communicate with people around the world by email, texting, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, ect. You can instantly exchange ideas/knowledge with people and broadcast your opinions. Furthermore, there is more pressure to keep up with the rapidly changing communication technologies (for social or business purposes) for fear of being left behind. [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 19:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital technology not only changes how we get information, but how we relate as individuals, how companies do business and communicate with customers, employees, and investors, and how citizens relate and interact with their governments. Other have commented on privacy and censorship concerns, but the effect on business and the challenges a business faces with this communication and information boom has left many corporations scrambling. If incorrect information is disseminated on the web, a business is not as free as an individual to respond (if it can even do so quickly enough). Outdated government regulation enacted before the digital world was created can work to restrict how a company responds or has dialogue with the misinformed disseminators.

“Today we can influence each other more easily than ever before because our media is digital, it can reach anything that has a screen. And nearly anything with a screen can also be published from — we have a two way media.” [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/will-a-fragmented-media-lead-to-a-flowering-of-culture/971]

In thinking about the Internet as a medium, I believe the most profound changes derived from the shift to digital media is the introduction of a communication stream that is now (1) highly fragmented, (2) immediate, and (3) conversational in nature.

# We’ve evolved from a finite and more easy to regulate roster of tens/hundreds of traditional news media sources, to billions of websites. Today, the average citizen has a public voice, forcing us to challenge our notions of what is considered “journalism.” There are both opportunities (i.e., innovative thought and talent can emerge) and challenges (i.e., inundation, how to regulate, varied levels of credibility, etc.) inherent in this kind of landscape.
# Additionally, the pace of media consumption has become extremely rapid. We’ve become a culture that is accustomed to the instant accessibility of information.
# Finally, media is now social. The concept of “wiki”-based information sources means that we can interact with the information we consume, and the viral nature of the Internet lends to an ease of content ‘shareability’. Media communication is no longer a one-way stream. -- [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the most significant challenges we face moving forward with regard to digital technology is the security. Not just private citizens but governments and corporations around the world are becoming more heavily dependent on it. Consequences of any major digital disaster (i.e. caused by cyber-terrorism or any unexpected failure) could be severe to an unimaginable level as the digital world gets more complex and interdependent within. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Edwardshinp regarding security. It's not just an issue of security of financial data for transactions, but we are looking at national security, corporate espionage, etc. Anything where we're engaging in the sharing of information. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the most significant challenges is defining what constitutes privacy of users. Facebook continually redefines the concept of what information is private for its users. As we get more social and increases in attempts by online organizations to bring a more personal experience to the user, this will continue to be a challenge. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As dreed07 said, I think the same. PRIVACY. I would say lack of privacy. --[[User:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

* [http://www.google.org/flutrends/ Google Flu Trends]

Google has stuck into out lives quite firmly. I mean, than Google predict something better than government entities (CDC) just by running an algorithm and analyzing few searches... On some level that is the best example of how dependent on the Internet we became. I am not saying that's a bad thing, people before me told the same thing about electricity. Times are changing and that is a progress none the less. But shouldn't we be a little more careful, stop for a second and have a look on what we were actually doing for the last 20 years? Can the Internet be our own Frankenstein monster? :) --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

''Please use this space for comments/discussion you would like to share with the rest of the class.''

* [http://pressthink.org/2010/07/the-afghanistan-war-logs-released-by-wikileaks-the-worlds-first-stateless-news-organization/ The World's First Stateless News Organization]
* [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html Russia's Own WikiLeaks Takes Off]
The idea of "Stateless News Organizations" seems to be getting around... In my country though it's a little less sophisticated... --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Rosen’s prediction of the public’s reaction to the release of the Afghanistan War logs was spot on. These logs, in my opinion, did not receive enough attention or create the amount of outrage they deserved. Because they exposed a distasteful problem, an uncomfortable public chose to turn a blind eye. --[[User:Jedmonds|Jedmonds]] 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

--------

“Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?” IMO Wikileaks is none of the above. What Wikileaks can be described as is one of several recent examples of the ways in which communications technologies are fundamentally changing the nature of life on the planet. It’s part of an incomplete definition that will be building in complexity for some time into the future.

We live in an environment today in which the sum total of human experience virtually floats in the air around us. Need directions, google it. Want to see what it will look like when you turn the corner at the next intersection, click to a 360 degree view. Wish to know what historical figure may have lived in that ancient building by the park, if there isn’t today, sometime in the near future there will be a website, wiki, webcam, historical archive, building plans, public utility schematics, images of deeds, mortgage documents, tax information, holographic immersive experiences …

Piece by piece we are collectively constructing a virtual copy of the world. More than a copy, it contains layers from this moment stretching into the past and other contextual information impossible to obtain a mere few years ago.

I worry when it is said that Assange is not "about letting sunlight into the room so much as about throwing grit in the machine." [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/?a=f]. With that kind of philosophy it seems the opportunity to cause harm is far greater than that for good.

If on the other hand Wikileaks becomes or spawns places of free and open communications where transparency reigns and people of conviction can become free to disclose information that brings light into what today are dark crevices, we’ll all be better off. If not, we need to worry.

We need also worry about as Brandon Palmen says, “an incomplete and skewed portrayal of fact.” [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/12/05/truth-is-not-enough/] Actions that result from reliance on the incomplete picture will have unintended consequences. This is true whether a skewed view is intentional or as a function of where we are with respect to construction of the new virtual copy of our world.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks? The truth is that there will soon be many versions of Wikileaks with many different degrees of completeness ranging along a spectrum from purely altruistic to undeniably evil. It will be up to the individual and the establishment to decide on which version of reality we each choose to believe and act upon. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would contribute to what my classmates have alredy said about “Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?”.

I am sure there are number of people who would go for first, second and third option. It depends from which point of view we are looking at wikileaks. Sometimes term whistleblower or some intermediary is enough. I am sure that sometimes it is very questionable and wikileaks might be regarded as a journalist. I am sure that some politicians would also use terms like terrorist or criminal.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
I would answer with the question. Shoul we know about wrongdoing, killing, torture, corruption and tax evasion? Should we know what is really going on like in 'Collateral murder video'?

Those are arguments for wikileaks, however to put one argument why we could be afraid sometimes is following:
“Everybody will be leaking dirt on everybody,” Rassudov [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html]
This is what concerns me a bit. --[[User:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikileaks controversy is one of many examples how much the Internet has changed the entire world. I am sure I will develop more ideas about regulating or not regulating what is out there in the Internet as this class progresses, but in terms of Wikileaks, I am still fundamentally puzzled as to how those confidential information has eventually gotten into the hands of Assange or Wikileaks from the first place. My point is if the government wants to protect certain information, it is the government's own responsibility to do so via strict prevention measures. And I suspect that this fundamentally has nothing to do with the control of the Internet or digital media. You can't just blame and impose everything on Wikileaks because it was simply living up to its whole purpose of establishment--exposing certain types of political information to the public as a new digital medium (in this respect, I don't see any difference among Wikileaks, WSJ or NYT). I definitely do think that some of the information released through Wikileaks were inappropriate and damaging to the national security, which ultimately is not in the best interest of the American people. I support the government's non-disclosure of certain information for national interest and safety. One should not assume that government transparency is always desirable and healthy (as Assange does seem to believe so), even in a democratic society. However, imposing anything on Wikileaks, whether constitutionally legal or illegal (i.e. Lieberman's actions), is just not the right way to handle the "mess." Take out the roots of the problem whatever they are--not Wikileaks. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

== Other Useful Links ==
I consider as the major challenge for E-industry the adoption of basic ethical standards/rules to be applicable for and followed by each provider as well as an user. Those rules should go far beyond and should be independent from a governance scope given by a local jurisdiction (something alike Wikipedia core content policies). The element of self-regulation emanated by the industry itself might be (a) an effective interpretation tool for numberless requests imposed for pursue of e-industry in particular jurisdiction (see link), (b) could prevent or diminish negative effects of state regulation or attempts of over-regulation or could help to constructively handle occurrence of case like Wikeleaks. Further, Internet as the major source of information and widely used communication tool has changed significantly quality and content of communication all over the world. This new phenomena already has and will have an overwhelming social and cultural impact on mankind and human interaction.

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2011-01-25T03:35:23Z

Dreed07: /* Class Discussion */

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2011-01-25T03:32:58Z

Dreed07: /* Class Discussion */