Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:47:52Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
I love the idea of how you are analyzing a community that is critiquing a larger popular community. I wonder if it is worthwhile to look into the culture: similarities and differences between the two and analyze it from there (major themes etc). It may be tricky to code themes because of time frames, or timing, so be careful! Also, be sure to include why core members are core members, and why they are the ones you are watching out for. I would also be careful in defining what are considered norms on Twitter and Weird Twitter.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Joshywonder: I am very fascinated with your topic, but am curious about the idea of whether or not it is important the users are all from Canada and if the anonymous users are from there? I also wonder, if this may be of importance to your project: If the power of the courts and laws are aligned with what is happening online? What I mean is, what legal tests are there used to determine what is deemed private and so forth, and if they are aligned with peoples online experiences?
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
This is a very interesting topic. I am left wondering though, what you deem to be major brands that you should look into and how they "market" their products so that people "like" it. How does the idea of social media connect to users liking the product? Is it just the fact that social media networking is powerful and constitutes a lot of people following brands online and liking stuff? What about other types of "likes"....like when people "like" pictures, quotes etc...is that a type of marketing strategy as well? What methodology will you go about to link that a lot of "likes" is a marketing strategy - what I mean is that, the more likes = the more successful a product is? How might you determine that? I am interested to see the end result of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*

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

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Free Speech: I'm looking at your prospectus, and the target community. You say 'the community operating in the business of discount travels'. I'm wondering if you have considered focusing on the consumer or the provider or the columnist/blogger portion of this community. I ask because I'm guessing the constraints: legal; market; and norm would probably be different, and the site owners could (although from a quick search, I can't see that they do) also use the site architecture to limit how each of these three groups participate on the site. There is, of course, a fourth group to consider, advertisers (a subset of providers, I'm assuming), and how the advertisers' perspective might limit what the site owners are willing to allow on the site. Finally, do the authors of the featured blogs comment in the forums? Are their comments given special weight? Do travel services providers show up in the forums in their professional capacity? Do they do so in an informational or customer service role? Great topic. I'm looking forward to your results. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:34, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Questions that comes up when reading your proposal is: how might you connect all of these questions together and how do things like the market link to regulation on the website? How might this internet control you perceive me relevant to general travel websites and what is significant in your study? What I mean by that is...what about control on the website? Why does it matter?
Other than that, interesting topic and I look forward to seeing the final product of your project! Flyertalk seems like a very fascinating community. [[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

:Also, have you decided which of Lessig’s four constraints you’ll be using? Are you sure you’ll only be using one? It seems that there are critical points to be made from more angles, and could probably be done without extending scope to beyond what is manageable with the time and length constraints. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
This is very interesting of a topic. I hope you consider talking a bit about privacy rights incorporating it into whether or not doxxing is considered proper. Also, it may be of interest to your topic to discuss why certain members are targeted and what are the commonalities in the ones targeted. I look forward to the final product of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.
*
:Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Laurence – Your subject is interesting. Is there a data source containing the information that you are interested in? How would it be known if someone looked up a disease on WebMD, then went to Amazon and purchased a supplement that might be suggested for treating it? Google or other companies that send out tacking cookies might collected this type of information. Access to this data is an important factor for your study. Also, does your subject relate to control or censorship? If the data cannot be collected easily, the subject might need to be narrowed or focused on an area where you can collect data. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:32, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Wow, this seems very ambitious. I wouldn't even know how to go about collecting the kinds of data that would be necessary to complete such a project. Do you have a plan for where or how you can obtain this kind of information in order to analyze it? I recently took a visualization class where students had to write code in python that would go out and collect and scrub data of one's choosing from the internet. Are you planning on utilizing some strategy such as that? Good luck with your assignment. [[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
This seems very big of a topic. I would try to narrow it down to only one of the sites and something particular on the website. It might be even more important to narrow down your question to what type of health information and how you are attaining your information (Just by the users of the websites?) and whether or not the users or the websites would necessarily be representative of everyone reading health information...Goodluck with your project! I look forward to the final product! [[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:40:38Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
I love the idea of how you are analyzing a community that is critiquing a larger popular community. I wonder if it is worthwhile to look into the culture: similarities and differences between the two and analyze it from there (major themes etc). It may be tricky to code themes because of time frames, or timing, so be careful! Also, be sure to include why core members are core members, and why they are the ones you are watching out for. I would also be careful in defining what are considered norms on Twitter and Weird Twitter.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Joshywonder: I am very fascinated with your topic, but am curious about the idea of whether or not it is important the users are all from Canada and if the anonymous users are from there? I also wonder, if this may be of importance to your project: If the power of the courts and laws are aligned with what is happening online? What I mean is, what legal tests are there used to determine what is deemed private and so forth, and if they are aligned with peoples online experiences?
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
This is a very interesting topic. I am left wondering though, what you deem to be major brands that you should look into and how they "market" their products so that people "like" it. How does the idea of social media connect to users liking the product? Is it just the fact that social media networking is powerful and constitutes a lot of people following brands online and liking stuff? What about other types of "likes"....like when people "like" pictures, quotes etc...is that a type of marketing strategy as well? What methodology will you go about to link that a lot of "likes" is a marketing strategy - what I mean is that, the more likes = the more successful a product is? How might you determine that? I am interested to see the end result of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*

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

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

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

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

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:38:01Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

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

******

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
I love the idea of how you are analyzing a community that is critiquing a larger popular community. I wonder if it is worthwhile to look into the culture: similarities and differences between the two and analyze it from there (major themes etc). It may be tricky to code themes because of time frames, or timing, so be careful! Also, be sure to include why core members are core members, and why they are the ones you are watching out for. I would also be careful in defining what are considered norms on Twitter and Weird Twitter.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Joshywonder: I am very fascinated with your topic, but am curious about the idea of whether or not it is important the users are all from Canada and if the anonymous users are from there? I also wonder, if this may be of importance to your project: If the power of the courts and laws are aligned with what is happening online? What I mean is, what legal tests are there used to determine what is deemed private and so forth, and if they are aligned with peoples online experiences?
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
This is a very interesting topic. I am left wondering though, what you deem to be major brands that you should look into and how they "market" their products so that people "like" it. How does the idea of social media connect to users liking the product? Is it just the fact that social media networking is powerful and constitutes a lot of people following brands online and liking stuff? What about other types of "likes"....like when people "like" pictures, quotes etc...is that a type of marketing strategy as well? What methodology will you go about to link that a lot of "likes" is a marketing strategy - what I mean is that, the more likes = the more successful a product is? How might you determine that? I am interested to see the end result of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*

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

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

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

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

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:35:40Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

******

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
I love the idea of how you are analyzing a community that is critiquing a larger popular community. I wonder if it is worthwhile to look into the culture: similarities and differences between the two and analyze it from there (major themes etc). It may be tricky to code themes because of time frames, or timing, so be careful! Also, be sure to include why core members are core members, and why they are the ones you are watching out for. I would also be careful in defining what are considered norms on Twitter and Weird Twitter.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Joshywonder: I am very fascinated with your topic, but am curious about the idea of whether or not it is important the users are all from Canada and if the anonymous users are from there? I also wonder, if this may be of importance to your project: If the power of the courts and laws are aligned with what is happening online? What I mean is, what legal tests are there used to determine what is deemed private and so forth, and if they are aligned with peoples online experiences?
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
This is a very interesting topic. I am left wondering though, what you deem to be major brands that you should look into and how they "market" their products so that people "like" it. How does the idea of social media connect to users liking the product? Is it just the fact that social media networking is powerful and constitutes a lot of people following brands online and liking stuff? What about other types of "likes"....like when people "like" pictures, quotes etc...is that a type of marketing strategy as well? What methodology will you go about to link that a lot of "likes" is a marketing strategy - what I mean is that, the more likes = the more successful a product is? How might you determine that? I am interested to see the end result of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*

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

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

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

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

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:29:40Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

******

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
I love the idea of how you are analyzing a community that is critiquing a larger popular community. I wonder if it is worthwhile to look into the culture: similarities and differences between the two and analyze it from there (major themes etc). It may be tricky to code themes because of time frames, or timing, so be careful! Also, be sure to include why core members are core members, and why they are the ones you are watching out for. I would also be careful in defining what are considered norms on Twitter and Weird Twitter.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
Joshywonder: I am very fascinated with your topic, but am curious about the idea of whether or not it is important the users are all from Canada and if the anonymous users are from there? I also wonder, if this may be of importance to your project: If the power of the courts and laws are aligned with what is happening online? What I mean is, what legal tests are there used to determine what is deemed private and so forth, and if they are aligned with peoples online experiences?
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
This is a very interesting topic. I am left wondering though, what you deem to be major brands that you should look into and how they "market" their products so that people "like" it. How does the idea of social media connect to users liking the product? Is it just the fact that social media networking is powerful and constitutes a lot of people following brands online and liking stuff? What about other types of "likes"....like when people "like" pictures, quotes etc...is that a type of marketing strategy as well? What methodology will you go about to link that a lot of "likes" is a marketing strategy - what I mean is that, the more likes = the more successful a product is? How might you determine that? I am interested to see the end result of your project!
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:28, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*

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

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

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

******

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:27:41Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

******

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

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

******

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:25:18Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

******

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

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

******

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:23:13Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

******

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

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

******

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:20:47Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

******

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

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

******

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-05T22:18:54Z

Laurencengirard:

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:

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

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

*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: "Asmith"
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´
*
:Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User: Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:HI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context. Natalia. ''''

Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Rich - I agree that this is a fascinating topic but feel that using so many other people as a lens in which to interpret, you will be limited by the page restriction, and also may run the risk of summarizing other works and not actually coming up with something novel that is uniquely your view and opinion. Otherwise, I think it would be interesting and can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:33, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
Aaron - I think you picked two great companies to look at because they are both inherently relevant and interesting! Only thing that you may want to consider is that it could be difficult to compare / contrast with page constraint in a meaningful way because they are not only both very different sites (fundraising site that is selling future products) and ad-hoc social video network, but also have very different policies (kickstarter being heavily marketed, including placement of projects and inclusion of certain projects in email updates, while letting others have to market for themselves - and my understanding of Chat Roulette is that it isn't moderated at all - but i haven't used). You may be more successful in comparing similar sites with different policies or different sites with similar policies... that way you can isolate a variable and attribute changes to it. With multiple floating variables, it will be tough to do in 10-12 minutes. Otherwise sounds fascinating and I can't wait to read! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 12:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor 
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” 
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. 
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645
*
:Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter,
:The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´

Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Pseudonym: Dear Alice
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc. 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Alice: Like @Raven, I love the commercial aspect of the paper! and Also, agree with Becca in that the Hypothesis would be too evident. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the idea page gets more response then facebook, without doing any research. If it turns out that our assumption is wrong, then you definitely have something! Maybe you could look at the threshold of types of comments that elicit response or get removed. Or potentially find another company that has idea and facebook and see how the level of moderation or responsiveness differs. Overall, I think it's a great idea! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:@Phildade + @ Becca, wouldn't the cost/benefit be interesting? Although the website might get more responses in the aggregate, adding the costs of managing and maintaining that portion of the Starbucks website might make the Facebook response (assuming it is smaller, but still robust) much more attractive? Possibly that information wouldn't be worth as much to Starbucks, a company with a large marketing budget, but it might be interesting to a much smaller company, especially one with high visibility but no actual revenue stream, or a revenue stream that doesn't allow for a large marketing budget and a team to monitor a website? And wouldn't Facebook find this info important?
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:13, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Michael Keane
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" 
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Michael,
:I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.

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

******

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

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

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

*Rebekahjudson
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged.
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
*
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Matthew D. Haney
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
*
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Milenagrado
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Tessa - this looks well-thought out and do-able within the parameters of the class. Reading through your prospectus, the following questions occurred to me: Do the deleted users have something in common? Are the moderators of the groups you are observing similar in some way? (For example, do they have manager or above in their title?)Is there a higher authority or forum for protesting deletions? And finally, in a professional forum such as LinkedIn, how would you distinguish keeping the conversation professional or productive or on-topic vs. censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:03, 27 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

******

*Alicia Phan | APhan
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: If you feel that it's relevant to your paper, I would be interested in reading your analysis of the pending class action [http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com Fraley v. Facebook].[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: While I agree with this statement, I think it needs to be substantiated: "More than ever people are learning about our laws through the mass media, and believing in the media’s representation of the legal realm". I think your methodology is a little too vague as I'm unclear on precisely what parts of Facebook you will be observing: globally public comments? Posts made by businesses? Comments made by others on subscribed updates? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Alicia: Your focus on the interpretivity of law, rather than its logical or declarative features, would be well-served by an analysis of how culturally-generated ideas about justice and how communities should be organized can develop into effective regimes of social order on social networks like Facebook.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Assignment 2 _USER777 .
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:User777: I am left wondering precisely what the research questions are and/or the methodology you will use to prove your hypotheses. Something like "I will also look at the “display ad” effectiveness that drives a significant demand for both online and in-store purchases" is a massive research project in and of itself and would realistically require access to private information controlled by businesses. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi User777: This is a very big topic, and I'm wondering if you are still in the formative portion of your project. Facebook has gotten a lot of attention on how and what shows up in the newsfeed and how this has an effect on the number and quality of likes, especially for advertisers. Have you considered narrowing your topic to the question of whether or not Facebook's policies are aligned with their advertisers? In the past few days, quite a number of articles have shown up questioning whether increased participation on the newsfeed is increasing advertisers' costs. What types of posts are most likely to show up in a newsfeed? What percentage of an advertiser or a users' friends get to see posts? Other than purchasing advertising, what things can advertisers or users do to increase this percentage? These questions might help to focus your thinking. I'm looking forward to your results.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Muromi
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Muromi: Instead of using Lessig's four factors, I thihttp://www.charitywatch.org/nk it would be interesting to use Zittrain's generativity lens to examine how China manages to innovate in spite of all the existing controls. I'd be curious to find out in what respects China's cyberspace is (or could) be unlimited.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Muromi, I think that is an extremely interesting final project, and I am looking forward to reading it once you are done. A few years ago I was a visiting professor of law at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, and I ran smack into the firewall many times. I think facebook was still allowed at that time, but many of the other sites weren't, so I had to use programs like anonymouse.org to get around the firewall. I also used QQ with my Chinese girlfriend and she was always scared that our conversations were being monitored for content. The only critique I have is that you may be studying too many different aspects of the firewall. You only have 10 pages to write, you might consider focusing on a few specific aspects of the firewall and the reasons they are in place. i.e. Google is currently banned in China, but is that because the government doesn't like what Google turns up or because they want to protect the competitive advantage of Baidu? etc.. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

******

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

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

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 10:26, 5 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Zak:
Your approach to the analysis of online fundraising seems rigorous and likely to yield actionable, material knowledge of the distinctions between online platforms for fundraising. It will be important to ensure that analysis of each platform is done in context, to assess the generative potential of each platform in those situations to which it's best suited.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:51, 5 March 2013 (EST) 16:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*RobMcLain
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx
*
:RobMcLain: You and Matthew D. Haney have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*Caroline
*The Right to be Forgotten
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Prospectus;_Johnathan_Merkwan.docx is my Prospectus; please read and enjoy. I look forward to constructive comments. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:46, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

::: I am very confused! Did I edit the wrong prospectus? [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name or pseudonym: Free speech,
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))
*
:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. :[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

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

:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”

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

:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Name: Susan Goldstein
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.
*
:Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Kaley Sweeney
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
: Hi Kaley, you have a very interesting topic here. But for such a topic, are there enough data and info that's accessible? Because Kim JungUn's policy shifts are so recent, it might be too soon and more difficult to observe and analyze any social and cultural changes within North Korea as a result of mobile internet access. Are there any websites and/or organizations that track internet usage in North Korea? Their reports may be helpful resources. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 10:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters. [[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*saridder: Steve Ridder

*The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Michael Keane comments: Well this is certainly an interesting topic, but you definitely have your work cut out for you. I'm not sure how one goes about prognosticating the future. I assume you are going to use recent history and developments to help you extrapolate information, but that can be a tough thing to do. I hope we are able to read each others final work as it will be interesting to see what patters you expect to develop.
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 11:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*María Paz Jurado
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

******

*John Floyd
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:John - You haven't clearly outlined your process or your specific questions, or what specific tools you'll use to come to your conclusions. That said, the overall topic is a fascinating one. To help you narrow your focus, here are some questions: What access do I have? What overall question most appeals to me? How can I relate it to the course goals? How can I answer that question given the access I have? What is it I am hoping to conclude? Does this conclusion relate directly to the course goals? What evidence will support or disprove this conclusion? How can I gather it efficiently? Will this be sufficient to meet the terms of the final assignment? Can I do this in the time provided? Am I willing to do this?
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)
*

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

******

*Pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

CyberRalph: Definitely an interesting and timely topic, but I wonder if Twitter is really the best forum for gleaning insight into the ''motivation'' of Anonymous members. After all, on Twitter, you're essentially getting the PR, the end result. For a previous project, I actually spent some time hanging out in Anonymous IRC chat rooms and found that the conversations there offered a lot more insight into the diversity of perspectives within the group and might give you a lot more material to work from. Of course, you'd have to be careful with your methodologies and think about the ethical issues involved, but these are still public forums. At the very least, you could check out other areas online that might allow you to grasp more of the conversation going on, especially when we're talking about such a heterogeneous group. Good luck! [[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 16:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Julian:You've presented some intriguing research questions. In part, it sounds like you plan to measure effectiveness numerically. If so, I look forward to the statistical analyses in your paper, possibly accompanied by figures/graphs/charts/etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Julian, I find tools to promote public engagement very interesting and useful, great topic to investigate about. It might be useful for you to see also moveon.org and signon.org, the latter is actually a website to create petitions and promote them through online communities. It might be interesting to compare how both government and NGOs use different approaches to deal with the same kind of issues. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:08, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Julian, I think this is a great topic. It was interesting to watch the federal government grapple with the issues of the 'X" number of signatures and what was going to fly to see a formal response. If you are able to track a couple of specific issues that are current and newsworthy (guns etc) you may see an ebb and flow of signatures based on the public interest that is hyped by media (both social and corporate)
It may be of interest to take two sides of the same coin to measure the results -- in the gun example you can't get much more polar than that as a debate and how the website will play a role in topics such as that would be a great paper.
Good Luck!
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 5 March 2013 (EST) Caroline
******
*Aly Barbour
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.
*
:Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

******

*Pseudonym: JW

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

*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)
*
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.

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

******

*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Jax: This is an interesting topic and one that will allow you to make many connections between the artists and those who critique the artists. You mention that you’re...''“interested in examining the characteristics of popular contributions and contributors in relation to broader reader and contributor demographics, exploring whether objectivity can emerge in this venue.”'' What preliminary hypotheses do you have? Does this website cater to the Ivy League crowd or does it attract rap enthusiasts from all walks of life? Examining demographics and objectivity is a valid approach, but stating your hypotheses upfront may provide an interesting twist. Do you think people are generally objective or subjective, and what demographics do you think most reviewers represent? If you follow this method, the data you collect will either confirm or negate your upfront interpretations. All in all, this is a very current topic and I look forward to learning about your findings. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Jax: Of all the topics posted I'm more drawn towards yours. I read a very interesting article ( though my google-fu currently fails me) underlining the similarities between opera and rap. One of the ways mentioned was that in order to appreciate either one must know the history of the genre in order to draw meaning from the references. I worry however that when you start to reach outside the community (rappers opinions on the site, social critiques) your analysis from observing the community from within will become watered down and lost among a much broader subject.[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 15:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

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

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

******

*'''Becca Luberoff''' 
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities 
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx 
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
*
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

:Becca, nice work! This is a really important topic, and I like the focus you have in terms comparing three different sites around one issue, bipolar disorder. You may want to evaluate the "explicitness and freedom" around specific criteria. If posts contain unique identifying information such as location of medical care or personal qualities (birthdates, current location, physical features) , if posters are frequent posters, if posters refer directly to one another by (user)name are just a few factors that may indicate how intimate, free, and explicit the forums are. Though I have never been on any of these message boards, I could imagine that market forces may influence the community's behavior as well. For instance, are there advertisements on the site? Spam? Doctor's opinions? Donation links? Another perspective to consider, though this could probably be another paper in and of itself, is how does the specific disorder affect the user's online experience and how well does the site cater to these differences? I know you will probably not get to explore this, but just something that I was considering while reading your prospectus. Thanks for this project, and I look forward to reading your work! [[User:Jax|Jax]] 10:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)
******

*Pseudonym: baughller
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx
*
:I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. :[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)
*
:@Baughller : I agree with @Zak in that the topic is fascinating! I never gave it much thought but it totally makes sense! I have always been on the side of personalization when it comes to ad's, as I would prefer they be relevant to me in the event that I have to view them at all. The personalization of search results and comparison to library of congress is great and a topic I think worth exploring. Only feedback I would give is that I think you need a stronger, more solidly stated research question and hypothesis, but as I said, the area of research is awesome so I'm sear whatever slice of it you choose to explore will follow suit! [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 13:12, 5 March 2013 (EST)

******

*Laurence Girard

*Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

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

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-03T20:35:05Z

Laurencengirard: /* Comments */

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-02-11T05:23:35Z

Laurencengirard: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTKIgdfoHxM&feature=g-list&list=PLKVu7JrHWC8FLGimSjxb06Bilxyygg13Y The Internet As It Was In 1996]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlCvva7eMxk&feature=g-list&list=PLKVu7JrHWC8FLGimSjxb06Bilxyygg13Y John Perry Barlow]

== Class Discussion ==

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

******

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

******

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

*******

Assignment 0

I think the top three challenges of the Internet are:

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

2. Governments tapping and spying on the internets users

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

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

******

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

*********

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

*********

Top three challenges of the internet are:

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

********

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

********

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

*****

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

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

*********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•Citizen-centric evolution of the internet (Mackinnon)

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

•We need to create a society of computer literate people

•Encourage innovation and exploration

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

By Alybarbour

******

Doug Forbes
Assignment Zero
1 29 13

From the 50’s thought the 60’s there was a communications theorist named Marshal McLuhan. He devoted a lot of thought and writing around the invention of Television, noting that the existence of the medium itself had impact beyond any specific content coming across it. He coined a phrase, “The medium is the massage.” He felt that the ability to bring images of experiences in real time across vast distances would bring an awareness of each others circumstance in an unprecedented way and that cold lead to deeper understanding of one another as people and as countries. He referred to this as a “Global Village” and wrote a book in 1968 that included that phrase in the title. However, by 1964, he had already written in his book “Understanding Media” that the networks of the day were “timid giants,” there position was so important and so visible that they had become very weary of promoting non-mainstream positions because they could so readily create chaotic responses.

Looking at the class readings so far, I’d say that the advent of the Internet made for very similar expectations in, promoting unrestricted speech, moving it across borders and across economic boundaries as well. Barlow’s Declaration of Independence in Cyberspace makes it clear that people felt they had an area of total free speech but unlike our founding fathers, he forgot to shoot the opposition. The most notable change that around the Internet in the readings is that those expectations which seemed almost inevitable to begin with have, to a very large extent not come to fruition. So to me the most important challenges that presents are in achieving some kind of balance in the areas of accessibility, governmental censorship as well as economic censorship.

Taking these in order, Hargittai’s writings on the Digital Divide make it pretty clear that Barlow’s “World that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth,” was wildly optimistic. With third world countries lagging behind, and minorities and the elderly behind as well, those things could be improved on a bit but some of the statistical information has probably been improved on in some areas since his latest stats which are around 2004. In particular India seems to have made very good use of the Internet and related telecommunications technologies to improve their economic status, just call Dell for tech support and you’ll get a good idea. Hargittai also points out that user skill level is crucial to making use of Internet access. Her suggestion that education is around this is perhaps the most important one as we only have so much control over what happens in other countries. The NYC school system has done quite a bit of experimenting with this with very favorable results, as a videographer, I did several video’s that demonstrated very good results when students had access to laptops and also one teacher in particular was big on having younger students use small, relatively affordable tablets, noting that third graders became enthusiastic to do rewrites of papers for the first time. Zickuhr and Smith point out that “Both African Americans and English-speaking Latinos are as likely as whites to own any sort of mobile phone, and are more likely to use their phones for a wider range of activities.” Which may make for an opportunity to flatten the digital divide a bit so that may take care of some of the access point issues in the U.S. but it still remains important to teach our youth to be good searches and Internet savvy, which may not be as easy to accomplish using cell phones.

Regarding Government censorship and control, Goldsmith and Wu point out that while countries such as China may go way to far in their blocking of Internet, countries like Frances’ opposition to a Nazi auction site may be perfectly reasonable given their history and culture and a one size fits all set of laws would not be desirable. The challenge here is very similar to all other media, holding governments to their standards where we can. I must say I thought Google and Yahoo missed on opportunity. Goldsmith and Wu quote Yang of Yahoo as saying, "To be doing business in China, or anywhere else in the world, we have to comply with local law." As proponents of free speech, just deciding that one must operate within the laws of a country like China and at least in Google’s case hoping that they would loosen up a bit by themselves, missed the fact that to be a major world power as the Chinese are clearly achieving, they would have to have a search technology and I think our search engine people could have demanded some reform. Instead they wimped out or got greedy and got hacked in the process. That was part of the challenge the Internet posed and they did not meet that part which is a human as well as political great loss as we might have benefited greatly from some loosening of controls on there part. It’s interesting to note that the ability to censor sites was not even discovered until it was brought into light in the Yahoo/France case. The technology had a built in capability that was discovered by a commercially developed technology.

This leads to the last and greatest challenge of the set, the role commercial censorship of Internet information. This is most challenging in part because our corporations are so pervasive, partly we don’t have a say in their goings on much and partly because as one reading points out, companies are beholden to their share holders and not to the general citizenry and sometimes these appear to conflict, at least in a short term view. MacKinnon has a great example of this in the Julian Assange happenings. Here we have someone very much in the business of providing otherwise hard to obtain information and with no conviction or even start of due process, his provider and I believe also his credit card processors pull out on him. We seem to have the most difficult time coming up with answers to this area of problems, it’s the one way in which the Internet is living up to it’s promise of eluding solutions to control. What would “taking back the Internet” look like? More Government intrusion? That is not always such a good idea and the antithesis of what it’s earlier proponents hoped for. Can you imagine that a company would be required to keep an account with someone who has just published national security secrets? Even if someone discarded the Assange case as an outlier, one is still left with the troubling mechanics of censorship of information by companies and corporations some of whom may be very savvy at Internet manipulation. Hargittai states that censorship or gatekeeping [in this country] is now occurring at the level of information exposure. MacKinnon calls for vigilant activism in keeping the Internet as free as possible, but it is very hard to regulate or in any way control gatekeeping at the level of information exposure. We used to have a fairness in reporting doctrine for the televised press, that was based on running an opposing view to any story, but with billions of pages, this type of legislation provides only a partial solution.

In conclusion, while the Internet may not have lived up to the expectations of proponents such as Barlow, it may still be the closets thing we have to what he envisioned. Of the three challenges discussed, the digital divide may suffer from some Mathew effect, but my sense is that as time goes on, this will lesson, especially here in the U.S. for the reasons discussed above.

Balance in Government regulation will continue to be an issue that we must be aware of and influence where possible as the situation warrants. While we should keep as much freedom as possible, should we really be able to skirt existing laws about background checks and buy six thousand rounds of ammunition in hundred round belts?

Corporate Censorship which mostly takes place at the level of information exposure is very problematic and perhaps can only be combated with counter information exposure. I would say that the Internet does provide a counterbalancing force. Lots of news items and discourse emerge from it, such as those of Matt Drudge, Jullian Assange just to name a couple of the most notable ones. If one really feels strongly about an issue that is buried in reams of digital masking, posting to your social media site, posting to blogs, calling and discussing with friends and colleagues, or, by whatever means is available. As the recent internet and telecommunications involvement in the Arab Spring Uprisings suggest, I believe that the Internet still provides the closest means possible to achieving it’s touted mandate of getting muffled voices heard across as many borders and obstacles as possible and as we think about legislation and control, preservation of that freedom should be paramount.
[[User:Douglas Forbes|Douglas Forbes]] 17:03, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Looking forward I think that there are a few problems that we can foresee for the rapidly growing and developing, global internet. I think that there are issues which we cannot now foresee, since innovation can surprise us with new unintended consequences. Among the problems that can be foreseen:
1. Expansion of infrastructure while keeping traffic moving free of charge (net neutrality).
2. Security threats and mal-ware.
3. There will continue to arise new social issues that are only present because of the available technology.
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 17:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1) Prior the internet, people were judged on their outward physical appearance, resume and their reactions or attitudes in terms of their likes or dislikes. However, with the increasing consumption of media and technology, people have become inclined to disclose detailed information about themselves, and others, that are virtually permanent and displayed for the whole world to see. People are now represented in new ways, from news articles to their online memberships, all of which could be accessed within seconds. In recent years, the proliferation of popular social networking websites only added to the internet profiling phenomenon. For the first time, people are willingly joining the websites and disclosing easily categorized demographic information, as well as personal preferences and ideas publicly. Arguably, the move towards globalization has never been shown as transparently as in these social networking websites, with members from all over the world. However, the goldmine of information collected in these websites, pose serious privacy issues and implications of a third-party controlling our representations of self. Websites are now essentially "owning representations" of users around the world. What is private to us, is much harder to distinguish. This is an issue, because the courts and legal rights within a country may not be aligned with the ever-changing aspects of the internet.

2) Although there are many negative aspects to the internet world, it is also innovative and "helpful" in terms of gathering data from all the world. What I mean by this is that, programs now have the innovation of millions of users around the world, and can be accessed within seconds. It saves costs, and time: E-commerce, E-mail. The exposure to information is limitless.
- An exponent of what I think is most innovative about the rise of the internet is the idea of communication and how it has evolved dramatically. News and information are able to travel across the globe to anyone, and in the matter of seconds.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:29, 29 January 2013 (EST)

The internet has changed and will continue to change our morals in many regards. On the one hand the proliferation of pornography has made exposure to previously heavily regulated acts much more commonplace for young men, this changes their views of women and relationships. On the other hand, the internet has exposed many in society to ideas and beliefs that they could never have encountered previously (i.e. individuals raised in a strict religious community can now easily gain exposure to those with differing beliefs). It has also increased international trade and broken down economic barriers (ebay now allows you to purchase direct from chinese manufacturers). I am excited to undertake an academic study of the internet with all of you. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 17:35, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

The Internet has allowed information to flow much more quickly and cheaply between various points on the globe.

Marketing and shopping have been significantly changed by the advents of secure remote transactions and targeted advertising. Potential customers no longer have to be local. In the case of software and media companies, distributing products is especially easy.

Countries are more intertwined than they were previously, thanks to quick informational access to distant places. Borders pose less of a limit on the exchange of cultural information between geographic locations (although things like the Great Firewall of China may curtail this benefit in many cases). Cheap, accessible long-distance communication between friends and family allows social lives to continue despite often being dislocated due to modern nuclear family lifestyles.

Content is often pooled together and ranked preferentially, allowing large quantities of relatively optimized (in the sense of meeting the users expectations more than older means of seeking information) to be rapidly found. Examples include Google indexing and the Reddit karma system. The creation of search engines like Google has allowed people to rapidly find new sources of information, permitting people to be more dynamic in their decision-making. It is no longer as necessary to anticipate every problem you will encounter, or rely on an uninformed solution. On the flip side, motivated cognition may limit or even invert this advantage by causing people to only seek evidence confirming their beliefs. The larger a pool of information, the easier it is to find evidence for any arbitrary viewpoint. Thus, one probable effect of the Internet (albeit difficult to quantify) is that people are now more confident of their beliefs, sometimes even if they’re not true. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 21:43, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******
To understand the present and future of the Internet, one must first understand its past.

The Internet protocols were developed by the Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA) as part of an effort to design a robust communications network. The ARPAnet, which linked together a number of high tech research institutions, was deployed both to demonstrate the workability of the protocols and to facilitate communication among research communities.
I would also present the argument that as the internet goes, so does the need for more social responsibility regarding uses. '''Hunter'''

******

I believe one of the most significant changes in this digital world is the upheaval of the intellectual property world, and i don't see the issue coming to an end any time soon.

The other major change that we are going through now is the different groups and countries around the world fighting digitally for control over the World Wide Web. Fighting for control over it's users, its economic value, and over the content that should and should not be allowed on the current "wild west web".

It will be interesting to see how these world wide issues could/will be solved with so many competing groups around the globe.
[[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 10:30, 30 January 2013 (EST)

******

1) ''Online education'' has changed the way students learn, interact, and absorb new information. Harvard has offered extension classes for more than a century, but online classes are relatively new, altering the educational landscape for students worldwide. The notion of online education has opened new doors for many who would otherwise be excluded from diverse learning institutions, i.e., Harvard. Many students have yet to discover the benefits of online education: recorded lectures, interactive chat sessions with classmates worldwide, skype-like discussions, etc. From my perspective, as a 4th year Extension student, online education represents the future. Children, adolescents, and adults will soon enter the online academic universe, learning from others with unique cultural backgrounds, languages, and global outlooks...it is only the beginning.

2) ''Online fundraising'' has allowed non-profit organizations to blossom and flourish worldwide. For example, in 2004, I founded an NGO in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, dedicated to education and personal development. As the founder, I have been tasked with raising tens of thousands of dollars to keep the organization alive for the past nine years. Online fundraising/giving campaigns have enabled me to reach hundreds of donors quickly, many of whom I have never met. Payment sources such as Paypal and Firstgiving have allowed me to raise funds through a secure streamlined approach. Donors do not need to put a check in the mail; they simple need to enter their credit card information and the funds are routed to an underserved population in the favelas (shanty towns) of Rio de Janeiro. This method of giving--helping underserved communities obtain a better lifestyle--is monumental in the world of NGOs. It has not only changed how people support causes, but it has also brought transparency to so many grassroots movements around the globe. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 16:42, 30 January 2013 (EST)

*********
1. One of the most significant changes to me seems to be the greater access to education for people who might not have the opportunity to access it in a traditional way. Since the internet is available all of the time if a course or training is available via the web then someone can access the information at any time.
2. A significant social change that has cropped up I believe is associated with children’s use of the internet, and how that has affected them and our society. Most children do not understanding the ramification of their actions or laws that pertain to them when they make threats or show provocative pictures of each other on the internet.[[User:Jaronica|Jaronica]] 18:35, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I think there are many significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies, but I'm stating the obvious. I will list a few below:

1) It has opened up global markets for both legal and black market goods to much of the developed world

2) It has allowed communications on an unprecedented scale.

3) It is allowing for almost unchecked observation or spying by companies and governments
on people on businesses. [[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 14:31, 31 January 2013 (EST)

By way of significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies:

1) It has exposed the glaring fallacy of so-called American exceptionalism by providing access, both legal and illegal, to American institutions like universities and banks.

2) It has altered the neuroplasticity of an entire generation by removing the resilience protective factors afforded by direct human to human verbal and physical contact.

3) In conjunction with recent legislation, it has opened the flood gates to foreign financial influence on U.S. politics.[[User:Getmike|Getmike]] 16:10, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Digital technologies, mostly through the Internet has exponentially expanded the amount and scope of information available as well as equally expanding access to it by those who have heretofore been restricted if not completely shut out from it because of their geographical, social, cultural and political environment. This is the latest advancement in mankind’s knowledge and ability to advance, much as in the past there have been other almost sudden in times of our evolution changes such as the printing press, electricity, advancements in transportation, the telephone and radio and television.
The ability to read and contribute to scientific and other advancements was restricted before the printing press to the privileged elite. The Internet has made economic ability almost insignificant; Electricity removed the obstacle of light and expanded every day precipitously. Advances in telecommunication end much isolation. Digital technological breakthroughs advanced in one fell swoop what it had previously taken centuries to do in all of these other genres. [[User:Rich|Rich]] 09:16, 1 February 2013 (EST)

To keep it balanced, I’m introducing one positive example of digital technologies and one negative.

1. The negative. I know about sexting and cyberbulling, but this week I was appalled learn about online Sexual Shaming. The NPR talk show On Point with Tom Ashbrook had a segment on Cyberbullying and Sexual Shaming (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/28/cyberbullying) which originally aired on Jan. 28, 2013 at 11:00 A.M. It featured an interview with Temitayo Fagbenle, a teenager who has been reporting on this issue for Radio Rookies, on WNYC, New York Public Radio. Apparently, it is very common for boys to post pictures and videos of of girls they’ve had sex with on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. More often than not, the girls didn’t know that these images had been taken. The boys reward each other for doing this by clicking “like” and within minutes the images are spread around the world to hundreds or even thousands of onlookers. But, even worse, boys and especially girls then “shame” the victim by posting scathing remarks about her. Temitayo, the teenage reporter, told about her experiences of trying to get Facebook to take down an image of a naked teenage girl. When she reported the picture to Facebook as harassment, she got a response back that the picture didn’t violate the community standard. But, Facebook community standards say you can’t have explicitly sexual content when minors are involved. She then reported the image again, this time as being pornographic and received a similar message from Facebook. Often there are no repercussions for posting these pictures and videos. School administrators often feel there is nothing they can do if the posting didn’t take place on school grounds. But sometimes schools take the position that it is a criminal matter and if they hear about it, they report it to the authorities.

2. The positive. MOOCS-Massive Open Online Courses. There is plenty of buzz about MOOCS these days. Some people view them as a huge threat to our colleges and universities because they’re giving away knowledge for free when most people are spending thousands of dollars for this knowledge. Others see it as providing educational opportunities to people around the globe who just a couple of years ago could never even dream of taking a course from Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. I recently completed a Stanford Online MOOC, Designing a New Learning Environment (http://venture-lab.org/education). In this course I worked with a team to solve a real-world problem: helping Doctors Without Borders to design a better way to train their staff who were working in the field. Our team brought together instructional designers, educational entrepreneurs, a medical business owner and staff from Doctors without Borders. We were located in California, Massachusetts, England and Spain. While it may have been possible for a team like this to have accomplished the same things if we had been paying $2000 to take a similar online course through Harvard Extension School, the fact that there were thousands of students in the course made it possible for people with similar interests and diverse talents to find each other. But, I think the most compelling aspects of MOOCS is illustrated by the story of Battushig, the Mongolian student who took the MITX class, Circuits and Electronics with a group of his peers when he was 15. He not only received an A in the course, but also got 100% on the final. I heard Anant Agarwal, director of MITx talk about this course and how proud he was of Battushig, especially since the final exam had been designed so that most MIT students would not be able to get 100%. Without this MOOC, students like Battushig would have very little if any opportunity to take, and excel in, a course like this. I’m very excited about the new edX initiative, which is bringing together courses from Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, and the University of Texas. I’ll be watching closely to see how this, and other MOOCS develop.
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 23:39, 1 February 2013 (EST)

I think that the ongoing conversation in the education world over what it means to be "digitally literate" contains embedded within it evidence of many significant changes associated with digital technologies. While an initial basic definition of "digital literacy" might have encompassed only the surface-level processes required to work various technologies (i.e. the button-pushing, the menu-scrolling, the basic how-to), the conversation has quickly evolved into a discussion of what broader skills are necessary for individuals to interact "well" with technology. That is, what different ways of thinking do we need to take advantage of our tools, how do we adapt and how has technology already changed us? Some examples might be 1.) the skill of information synthesis 2.) the skill of working across mediums, both to digest content and to produce it 3.) the skill of replication and remixing 4.) the skill of constant curation, 3.) the skill of time-sensitive analysis and snap recommendation. All of these skills might be behaviors that existed prior to the proliferation of digital technologies for consumer use, but the digital explosion has nevertheless made them explicit, made them ubiquitous, and, arguably, made them necessary, thus changing not only our thinking about education, but also about the skills that we ourselves broadly value, in informal social settings, in the workplace, or elsewhere.
--[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 12:49, 2 February 2013 (EST)

****
1: Democracy within Internet, I believe it is a significant characteristic within social arena- the freedom of any information. 2 Regulatory issues based on culture; I think it plays an important role within social and political criteria that brings ample diversifications within cultural policy and policymaking criteria. 3 Copyright; as Internet has affected everyone in many areas of their life, it also allows to build resistance of use, regulations and rights between diverse audiences.
[[User: user777|user777]] 17:01, 2 February 2013 (EST)
[[User:User777|user777]] 09:51, 3 February 2013 (EST)

Internet has changed human interactions with each other. Through smartphone , laptop etc... the way of the communication has shifted in a different direction. That also provided freedom of speech , people started to express their feelings , thoughts or ideas more than face to face communication. I still question is it a good thing or bad but sure there are some pros and cons. Internet also changed our shopping habits, people start to purchase more online and it became more reliable , after black Friday there is a Cyber Monday, suppliers need to create another shopping era for online shopper and they won't feel left out anymore. Another thing is education, a year ago Harvard and MIT had create a new platform that called EDx , internet has changed the way how we learn. There are very serious free online learning platforms and open universities and it became very popular in recent years. Online learning have started to recognize by companies as well as society. After internet I believe this things will never go back how they were.
[[User:Aydan|Aydan]] 17:00, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Books can be filled just trying to describe the effects of digital technologies on human civilization. But I think one of the most important effects, if not revolutions, caused by the spread of digital technologies is giving people an alternative platform of speech, and consequently, an alternative way of spreading information. It has become infinitely easier for anyone to express their opinions, thoughts, and/or artistic expressions to a broad public. Significantly, by being able to access the internet, those who would otherwise have been too timid to speak out in physical life have been able to express themselves, even through different personas or anonymously. These people consist not only of activists who have been repressed, but also of children who may have not found their niche in school.

In a way, the speech rights of people have been greatly empowered and democratized - in the sense that not just the elites, but the masses have been given easy access to "publish" their thoughts. Criticisms (deserved or not) are also easily voiced and leaked and spread like wildfires. Consequently, governments have been forced to be more receptive, or at least appear to be (which is still an improvement), to the common person.

I am currently writing from within the Great Firewall of China. While it's true that the internet controls the government has implemented have been very detrimental to internet browsing freedom, people haven been able to affect change thanks to digital technologies. The Central Government has been persuaded to bring to justice several corrupt officials thanks to online fury. These may not be significant in the big picture of politics, but the fact that the common people have a chance to affect change besides physically risking their lives through rallies is a gigantic improvement. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 15:59, 5 February 2013 (EST)

`
`
`
`

I know it is a little late now, but I just thought I would add to the discussion of using facebook postings in court. I occasionally do insurance defence work and it is standard practice that for every single personal injury law suit that I defend, I ask for the plaintiffs facebook account to verify if their complaints match up with their facebook photographs and postings. Often it is the facebook profile that kill the claim, because their claims of whiplash are not verified by their photographs of partying. Joshywonder Feb 9 ````

This is Laurence Girard. Here are the most significant changes that have developed with the Internet:

1. In the past, we had to speak to our local doctor to get information about health, but now we have access to top medical journals from the comfort of our own home. There are even services that allow us to consult with a physician via video chat such as Teladoc. I believe that around 80% of Americans have searched for health information online in the past year.

2. Unlike 10 or 20 years ago, we can now purchase almost every imaginable product and a global market place has developed online. Sites like Alibaba allow us to even connect with farmers in the developing world. This was not possible 10 or 20 years ago. I have even Skyped with Brazil nut farmers in Peru via such services.

All in all, I think the Internet is going to transform healthcare while creating a global market place for goods that did not exist several decades ago.
[[User:Laurencengirard|Laurencengirard]] 00:23, 11 February 2013 (EST)