Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

New Economic Models

2012-02-14T21:54:09Z

Michaels: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 14'''

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

<onlyinclude>

==Readings==

* Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot-com Bubble]
* Chris Anderson, [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html The Long Tail]
* Kevin Kelly, [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Better than Free]
* Eric von Hippel:
** The Economics of Open Content Symposium: New Models of Creative Production in the Digital Age Collaboration and the Marketplace - '''Video stream of the 30-minute presentation: [http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel new improved link!]''' (requires [http://real.com/ RealPlayer]). See below for alternate links to the presentation in video and audio format.
** [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Democratizing Innovation, Chapter 8: Adapting Policy to User Innovation]

== Additional Resources==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail "Wikipedia Long Tail"]
* Free by Chris Anderson[http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?]
* Larry Lessig's [http://codev2.cc/ Code 2.0]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

What interested me more about the readings was the dot-com case and the high risk that these internet-based companies were taking. Even though they knew that there could only be one network-effects winner in each sector, they continued with their strategy of “get large or get lost.” Also, they were not investing a few thousand dollars, but millions of them in a battle to remain in the dot-com business. As a result, only some large dot-com businesses remained, such as Amazon and eBay.

Also I enjoyed The Long Tail article because it explains a number of phenomena I think all in this class have experienced but sometimes were unaware of the causes. First, we were living in a Hit-driven culture, talking about the same movies or TV series at high school, but we knew little about foreign TV shows and movies. Part of this issue is why the East criticizes the West, because probably we know who is Lady Gaga but we don’t who wrote Le Tartuffe.

Thus, what I like about The Long Tail, and also part of the author’s conclusion, is that we are entering in a more diversified time, where not everybody listens to the same songs, looks the same movies and reads the same books. The more we find, the more we like.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have two thoughts relating this week's reading to the larger world.
The first is a re-synthesis of other ideas, in that the internet has not really so much created new things as it has amplified already existing phenomena. Media sharing has been around nearly as long as the media itself. In the 80's, the band Metallica encouraged fans to make copies of their music (on cassette tapes) and hand them out to friends. I remember my own friends and relatives trading albums on cassettes and mix tapes. My grandmother had a set up to easily copy VHS tapes at home. She would rent movies, and copy them for later. Certain movies that were more popular were often purchased, since it made them easier to find (my grandmother had a cataloging system, where every tape was numbered, with the movies that were on each tape listed both on the tape, and recorded in a notebook - just looking for the right tape cover was much easier), and better quality. Sure, the movie companies didn't make as much money as if she had bought all of the movies, but then again, she bought much more than she would have otherwise. The only real difference now, is that it is easier, more widespread, more exhaustive, and easier to see.

The second is that my wife and I often observe to each other that while companies are often most concerned about owning the most market share, or getting the largest profit per unit, what really should matter is if any individual thing is profitable. It is ok to have a portion of the business that is less profitable, so long as it is still is profitable in the first place. It doesn't matter if an individual item is hugely profitable, so long as once all the costs have been payed, the item makes money.
One example of this would be the breakdown of the starsplay/ netflix arangement. Stars Play wanted to deal with netflix like a cable company, making individuals who wanted the extra content pay separately for it. Netflix wanted to outright license the Stars Play content, rather than start a two tier pricing scheme. Because SP didn't want to compromise, there was no deal. I, for one, never intend on accessing SP content elsewhere (and certainly not paying for it), do not have a cable tv subscription that has access to it, and would not have paid extra for it if they had gotten netflix to budge. There are far too many interesting titles for me to watch that, while it might not be exactly what I wanted, costs me nothing additional. SP meanwhile, loses out on my little sliver of what netflix would have payed them. Sure, they wouldn't have made as much money per unit, but they would have made money they wouldn't have made otherwise.
[[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I really loved the Wired article and its point that this next era will be more about “misses” than “hits.” The internet and new technology remove almost all the related costs that created this all-or-nothing dichotomy; once I read it, it seems so obvious to realize that “misses” still can generate reasonable profits, just not ones that could overcome the expenses inherent in our older distribution systems (movie theater, an actual record store in a small town, etc.). The concept of the Long Tail and the 3 Major Business Rules he gives at the end are all great.

I’m a reasonably expense-conscious person in the just post-college age range with a low income, but I am also quite active in pursuing media I enjoy (movies, tv shows, music, books). With so much available free online (illegally) I tend to only pay (whether by actually paying or by getting it through a medium that provides ad revenue directly to the creator) for around 1/3 of all the media I enjoy. Those are the songs by artists I like best and truly want to support, or the movies that I am so impressed with that I want to contribute to their box office take and that simplemindedly measured “success.” Following the second Long Tail Rule, I would be very happy to pay SOMETHING for almost everything I enjoy. Lowering the prices dramatically or providing a “pay what you feel” option would actually increase what I’m happy to pay pretty significantly. And I know this is totally anecdotal, but I feel like most of my peers have the same sentiment.

Does that sound about right to everyone else in the class? Would you pay at least something for everything if that was an option?

Democratizing Innovation echoes a lot of discussions/other readings we have had about the importance of having both the manufacturers and users able and willing to innovate. The phrase “Policy makers should be aware of ‘collateral damage’ that may be inflicted on user innovation by legislation aimed at other targets“ really summed it up well for me. As cliché as it is now, “thinking outside the box” is sometimes only possible when people have the ability to ignore the boundaries that create that box. This is something very difficult for major organizations or corporations to do, but easy for individuals. Unfortunately, with acts like SOPA even being proposed, we seem to be moving in to opposite direction of the more user-innovation focused world the chapter argues for.

And just briefly on the dot com crash: I’ve studied the housing bubble/foreclosure crisis quite a bit in the past few years, but was too young to really grasp what was happening with these comparably massive dot com crashes at the time. This look back was pretty jarring. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally had no knowledge al all of the dot-com bubble system. It seems to me that these bubbles were more of a financial scheme rather than a legally oriented invention. Creating something that people will invest in just because of the e- prefix or the .com at the end seems a bit naïve and risky but surprisingly enough many people fell for this and as a result some made money but the majority lost their funds and companies went bankrupt. I really enjoyed reading the Long Tail article. I never would have guessed that thanks to modern systems such as the internet and Amazon.com for example, old hits or even more surprisingly “misses” would turn out to be hits. I often noticed while buying merchandise on Amazon.com that at the bottom of the page it would show me related items and trends and I must admit that a few times while buying books or DVDs specifically, I have also bought related items suggested by Amazon. Another article that I enjoyed reading was the one Better than Free since I agree with the author and find myself in similar situations. I believe that most people emphasize one of the generatives rather than all eight of them. Personally I like having something immediately delivered to me rather than doing several searches for something that would take me time, and therefore I also agree with the Findability generative as well. I also enjoyed the last article and found it to be really accurate. Users looking for or in need of a certain device either continued with their lives without it or in the case of the article, built it or developed it themselves…the majority of inventions are user centered rather than discovered and developed by manufacturers . I personally think that some of the most important inventions took place because of the user’s need for a given device. Large corporations don’t usually see what people could use on an everyday basis but aim to invent spectacular devices in order to sell and make profits. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@AlexLe I wanted to reply to your question about paying at least something for everything if it's presented as an option. My husband and I developed a catchphrase while traveling that went something like, "Why won't you let me pay you??!!" Sometimes this had to do with things like trying to find a place where we could do (or pay someone to do) laundry but oftentimes it had to do with companies not getting their act together online. One classic (hypothetical, of course) example was when my husband wanted to read a particular comic book while we were in Malaysia. So he went to the publisher's website and searched for it. They didn't have any digital copies and print copies weren't available either (not that they would have been much use to him in Asia). So he then went "elsewhere" and found exactly what he was looking for. He even contemplated sending money directly to the author because he really liked the guy's work and wanted him to get something for his efforts. Generally speaking, we try to go through proper channels first but if those don't work, we'll take our business elsewhere.

To get a little Cluetrain Manifesto, companies are shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can sit back and dictate the terms of their relationships with consumers. Yes, the profit margins may be smaller to offer products online in easily reproducible formats, but companies are effectively putting themselves out of business by not acting as useful intermediaries. Kevin Kelly does a great job of highlighting the potential value-adds of intermediaries in "Better than Free", while Chris Anderson explores the significant profit opportunities available to companies that exploit the long tail. If companies invested as much time and energy in getting ahead of the on-demand media delivery curve as they did fighting for control of an antiquated relationship between producers and consumers that consumers are opting out of anyway, then those companies might actually have a shot of staying in business for the next five years. /rant
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 04:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Power of the Preview"

During high school, the internet was in its infancy. Therefore the accessibility of lesser-known artists to sell their songs/albums in the open market was limited. I have been involved in music throughout my life and a band’s path to creating a commercial album has been a challenging and structured process starting with signing up with a label, providing upfront costs for production, pressing CD's and so on. In this digital age where physical CD's are no longer required and home studio technology has advanced, the costs to produce an album are certainly less. While I am not familiar with popular music sites such as Rhapsody, I know that iTunes is quite accessible in allowing independent musicians sell their songs on their platform.

In addition to the algorithmic recommendations that have created the Long Tail, I also believe that the “preview” function is also vitally important. To hear a segment of a song is particularly powerful for the Long Tail effect (i.e. iTunes). Prior to the music digital media age, the only way that a listener could preview a more obscure band was by listening to the album through others or seeing live shows. Therefore consumers were less likely to pay full price for an entire album from a band that they were wholly unfamiliar with. However the ability for consumers to hear parts of songs has undoubtedly contributed to the Long Tail affect.--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that the generative qualities immediacy, personalization, accessibility, and findability allow Youtube, online radio, and Netflix to become my main source for entertainment in the free copies world. I no longer depend on my TV, which had limited shows and a fixed schedule. On the contrary, I can basically find any video on Youtube and watch them for free. With a Youtube account, I can create a play list and watch my favorite videos at my convenience. I had also watched many seasons of America’s Next Top Model on Youtube for free.
I remember the days when I had to call into a local radio station to request them to play my favorite song. Now, I can just go on Youtube and watch/listen to my favorite songs. I also no longer feel the need to run to a store to buy a favorite CD or the need to purchase my favorite songs. I also appreciate the fact that I can stream my favorite local radio station online, even when I am out of the local range. Netflix is another example of a convenience source to access shows and movies instantly. [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 04:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed the Technium article that mentioned the generative qualities that favor the consumer. Companies like Amazon and Wikipedia embody these qualities the most, with Amazon give us a great example of the Long Tail. As a superstore, Amazon has an incredible amount of adaptability and ability to connect buyers and sellers. Lots of items bought off Amazon are from other sellers they do business with so they are just connecting you to them. I do wish Kevin Kelly touched on advertising which he admittedly omitted. Perhaps he wanted to avoid the discussion of consumer versus producer driven demand and who shaped or steered these generative forces more. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The properties of generative innovation that von Hipple spoke of is quite eye opening, albeit not unexpected. The shift from manufacturing standards to user generative improvements reflects the long tail effect spoke of in the other articles. Unfortunately it seems as though most companies and manufacturers adhere to the antiquated principles of limitation. Von Hipple is quite clear when he states that many of the users and innovators seek a shift of the current legal precedents set through patent law and copyrights. As he noted, the physical world costs time, money, actual physical stuff to be modified. But in the virtual world, anything can be copied and modified without the need for physical items, or even R&D, since that can come through democratization of innovation. Because the virtual world inside computers allows for instant copying and modification, and since the internet allows for the instant communication and copying between systems, the long tail is not only enabled, but it allows for instant results at virtually no cost. But it is precisely because it is virtual and it avoids cost (or profit for that matter) that the application of laws and practices that rule a world of normal distribution don’t apply. Those laws apply to systems of manufacture in which it is difficult or costly to enable that manufacture. One in which all users can be grouped into large groups, instead of millions of small ones. As the world moves closer and closer to the singularity, the laws and rules of the physical world need to be modified in order to account for the virtual world, or new laws and regulations need to be made, ones which address the difficulties of controlling the long tail. And I don’t really see that happening because of the rights that would be infringed upon (freedom of speech, press, expression, et al.).[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way here is a link to "Free" by Chris Anderson: http://books.google.com/books?id=lLZbXN2odVYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q&f=false [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Kelly's article, Better than Free, touched on something we discussed in our first few classes - a human element of trust when communicating on the Internet. A lot of the reading selections for class keep coming back to a common theme for me: "Golden Rule" or Trust. Kelly places a monetary value on "trust" but more importantly recognizes that this notion of being able to trust products, people, etc. on the internet will always remain a key player. Eric von Hippel also spoke about an element of trust - between the user and manufacturer regarding innovations. There is a fine line between intellectual property rights and access for users to change and improve products. [[User:Hds5]] 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Though the traditional mode of financial transaction appears threatened by digital reproducibility, Kevin Kelly suggests that being "free" is only part of the equation. We can explain why iTunes, Netflix, Steam, and Amazon have been so successful despite piracy efforts: what they are monetizing isn't just the product, but also the services around the product that enhance and secure the consumer experience (this is also, I think, the juncture at which law feels most relevant to the consumer: it promises reliability and safety that the pirate cannot). Unfortunately, not only does much of the entertainment industry remain stubbornly tethered to protecting the copyable product, but it even fails to outperform pirates in the eight generative areas. For instance, consider the recent incident where Japanese comics publisher VIZ Media ordered Manga Stream, an online group which scans and translates comic series as they are published weekly, to stop releasing some of its most popular titles. Yet Manga Stream had exceeded VIZ in every respect when it came to providing quality comics: MS did not censor the original content, as VIZ had in its English-language versions; MS's translations were far more consistent and accurate; and most perhaps importantly, MS's releases were almost immediate, whereas VIZ released their own English scanslations ''weeks'' after the Japanese originals. Instead of proposing a superior alternative, VIZ was focused on preventing what is inevitably—thanks to the affordances of technology—unpreventable. This, to me, seems to be a lose-lose situation for all parties involved. We receive inferior products and services, and the publishers receive unenthusiastic business. Looking forward to hearing what others think can be done. [[User:Michaels|Michaels]] 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

== Links ==

Assignment 1 Submissions

2012-02-08T00:43:28Z

Michaels:

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===
Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment1.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (final deadline: Tuesday, February 7, 5:30pm ET).

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

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

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

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

===Submissions===

Name: Yerzhan Temirbulatov 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload Megaupload] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:YerzhanTemirbulatov_Assignment1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Blake Geno 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderall#Adderall_XR] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:LSTU_Assign_-1.odt] 

Name: Fabiancelisj 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutique_hotel Boutique Hotel] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Fabian_Assignment1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: BSK342 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Esserman Marc Esserman] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Image:Bsk342assignment0.pdf&oldid=7427 Assignment 1] 
[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Harvard 212 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: Public Good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Harvard212_Assignment1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Harvard212|Harvard212]] 12:09 EST, 7 February 2012

Name: Alexis Ditkowsky 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa M-Pesa] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Spring2012-BerkmanWikipediaAssignment1-DitkowskyAlexis.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 17:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jeff Kimble 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Jeff_Kimble_--_Assignment_1.doc] 
[[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Abby Bergman 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Digital Divide in the PRC] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Bergman_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Alex Lloyd-Evans 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956 United States presidential election, 1956] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:AlexLE_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Emanuele Dominici 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio Operation Gladio] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Emanuele_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: James Harris 
Rule:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Republican_primary,_2012 Florida Republican Primary, 2012] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:James_Harris_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
--[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Hope Solomon 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good] 
Report:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Assignment_-1.doc] 
[[User:Hds5]] 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Christopher Mejo 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal Drupal] 
Report:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/LSTU_Assignment-1.doc] 
[[User:chrism]] 22:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name:Gregorian Hawke 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy] 
Article:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama] 
Report:[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Ignore_all_Rules_%28Assign_1_-Gregor%29.odt] 
[[User:chrism]] 22:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Quynh Dang 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_cuisine Vietnamese Cuisine] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/QuynhDang_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 05:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Jennifer W. Lopez 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change.org Change.org] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:LSTU_E-120_JenniferWLopez_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 08:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Julia Brav 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_knitting Finger Knitting] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:JBrav_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Jlynnping|Jlynnping]] 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: André Pase 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Calibur_V Soul Calibur V] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Andre_pase_assigment1.doc Assignment 1] 

Name: Priscila Lollo 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniella_Cicarelli Daniela Cicarelli] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Priscila_Lollo_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 

Name: David Taber 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war Culture War] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:David_Taber_Assignment_1.odt Assignment 1] 
[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Marjolein Siegenthaler 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Netherlands Copyright Law of the Netherlands] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Assignment_1_Marjolein_Siegenthaler.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:MSS|MSS]] 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Carl Fleming 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Fleming_Assignment_1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name:Nicholas Thibodeau 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: Public Good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech Free Speech] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:NJThibodeau_Assignment_1.pdf Assignment 1] 
[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Brendan Long 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hamilton_Gordon Albert Hamilton Gordon] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Assignment_1_-_Long%2C_Brendan.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Samantha Zakuto 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Assignment_1_Samantha_Zakuto.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:szakuto]] 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Manuel Valerio 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire_plc] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:MValerio_assignment1.pdf] 
[[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: TBaechel 
Rule: Citing Sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources] 
Article: St. John's College [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(United_States)] 
Report: Assignment 1: Wikipedia [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Johnny_Assignment1.doc] 
[[User:TBaechel]] 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC

Name: Just Johnny 
Rule: Ownership of Articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: Prince Harry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_harry] 
Report: Assignment 1: Wikipedia [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Baechel_Assignment_1_E120.pdf] 
[[User:Just Johnny]] 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Michael Suen 
Rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles] 
Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Hong_Kong Censorship in Hong Kong] 
Report: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MichaelSuen_Assignment1.doc Assignment 1] 
[[User:Michaels|Michaels]] 00:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Name''': Mike Brant

'''Rule''': Neutral Point of View [[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View] ]]

'''Article''': One Laptop per Child [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC]

'''Report''':Mike Brant_ Assignment One [[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Image:Mike_Brant_Assignment_One.doc.doc]]
[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2012-01-31T06:04:38Z

Michaels: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 24'''

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* 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 ==

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

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

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:RobF|RobF]] 14:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)'''</div>

What comes to mind immediately is the use of Twitter and Facebook with regards to the Arab Springs and Occupy movements. Economically, the 2010 "flash crash" and dynamics behind with regards to global economies are of significance. Also, as cloud computing is becoming more abundant, I wonder what role it will play with regards to this spectrum. [[User:Mvalerio|Mvalerio]] 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

With the spread of digital technologies there have been many changes in the social, cultural, political and economic aspects in the world. For example, in the social aspect, the necessity to be with others has been decreasing over time due to social media and smart devices. It comes to mind the now popular image of a group of people being together in a table but chatting in their smart phones, or the number of friends one can have from other countries. Likewise, in the political field we can say that the Internet propitiated the Arab Spring, helping countries in the Middle East like Egypt, Morocco and Libya to fight against their leaders. Finally, we have seen a cultural change in how people get informed and interpret information; before the digital technologies were part of our lives, people read only the local newspapers, but now people can read foreign newspapers, magazines, blogs and different sources of information, and judge by themselves whether inside their countries the news are being properly transmitted or not.[[User:Fabiancelisj|Fabiancelisj]] 19:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The largest changes I see are in expectations and perceptions of the world, especially resulting from the amount of, and lack of standardization and quality controls on information available. I will use the hypothetical example of a car company to illustrate: Because there is so much information available on this hypothetical car company, anything that happens, whether good or bad, has the potential to be widely publicized. Let's say they have a part that failed on some cars, and instituted a recall. In the past, if this was a small issue, it could be done quietly. With the easy access to information, what was previously a small recall, only impacting a few customers (inevitable with such a complex product), it may make big news. Or it may go unnoticed in the flood of information available, even if it was in reality, rather serious. If a potential customer is trying to decide on a car to buy, they may learn of this recall, and have second thoughts. This may be for legitimate reasons, or it may be something that is not the company's fault, and possibly other companies the customer is considering may even be much worse. But, seeing this safety recall, and becoming concerned, the potential customer may now purchase a car from a competitor. The information in an improper context may give the customer a false impression. It may also be something that is not normally considered important. A dashboard gizmo may be something most car companies don't normally consider as important, and doesn't undergo as rigorous as testing. A simple recall, and the problem is a non-issue safety wise. But that's not how the customer perceives it. A similar example can be found in employers screening job applicants with a web search. If there are say, embarrassing photos found of the applicant at a party in college, this may seriously harm the applicant's chances. All the while, the other 4 applicants may have even worse pictures, but they simply don't come up to the top of the search results. These types of possibilities change both how we perceive the world, and what we expect out of entities in the world, because of the mere possibility of data being discovered. [[User:BlakeGeno|BlakeGeno]] 19:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think digital technologies' most significant effects so far have included fundamentally altering how people view themselves w/r/t society as a whole. Previously people viewed themselves as either being recognized or ignored by media that monopolized the civic discourse on many levels, now there are plenty of platforms for people to present themselves and be legitimated on their own terms. Tools and platforms for creating and distributing art (movies, music, podcasts etc.) certainly play a role in that, but so have social networking platforms, where folks can connect with other like-minded people and coordinate brick and mortar, face-to-face interactions (movie screenings, lectures, art shows, discussion groups, etc.)[[User:David Taber|David Taber]] 04:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite the assigned articles we just read about some of the ways governments try to limit online activity and sharing, to me the most significant changes brought about by the spread of digital technologies are all related to freedom of information and the vast amount of information now accessible. This has political implications in both huge and radical ways (like the way Twitter is used as a organizing tool in many of the Arab Spring movements) and in smaller ways that fit within existing political structures but empower the average person much more (with the internet, I can check any American Senator's voting record, write a letter directly to my congresswoman, etc.). It also has cultural and social implications in the way ideas spread and are shared and altered. Regardless of where you are born or living, you can find people who hold almost any political/social/cultural/religious views online somewhere, and make that your primary community, rather than the one you physically live in. The sheer amount of information and connectedness made possible by the spread of digital technology are at the heart of most major changes based off that technology. [[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Freedom. Users have the ability to post any piece of information they wish using digital technologies. This platform is free and happens in real time causing an immediate impact. Put to good use these, digital technologies such as Twitter can connect high school friends in a matter of minutes. Likewise, the same communication method could be used to post a video bullying classmates for being different. The impact of both situations is immediate and with real consequences. The question remains how much policing is necessary to continue maintaining an accessible environment. HopeS 17:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Perfect enforcement" by the government utilizing the internet and the growing number of tethering devices is a an area of interest of mine. One would be wise to question the extent to which we are likely to be monitored by the government, knowingly or unknowingly, as technology grows. In addition, I am also interested in the drastic political change that social media is capable of spurring. I am interested in learning more about the extent to which governments may be involved, now and in the future. Lastly, I would like to explore potential innovative educational opportunities that may be created in developing nations with the advent of virtual classrooms and online academies. [[User:Cfleming27|Cfleming27]] 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace treats the internet as if it were a public good. However, it does not consider that the Internet is not free and therefore it can and will be regulated to a certain extent. Governments will seek to regulate the Internet on some issues, while corporations that subsidize news, Web content, and even access - via mobile devices will censor the net on other issues. The remaining "free space" of the Internet and pressure that the public at large can apply to advertisers and commercial interests that build out the infrastructure access to the web, is the space that will be left over for this utopian "social contract" that will enforce Web behavior. Demands for increased access and less regulation will be met with the challenges of governments and entities that will provide that infrastructure, perhaps shaping the Internet in a very different way, and this is what I see as the next big challenge of the digital age. ˜˜˜˜ Rberk2012 20:27 January 23, 2012

I believe the most significant change brought forth by the internet has been the globalization of the marketplace. First, firms now have the capacity to do business without any real barriers, and in real-time. A small business in Germany, for instance, can now conduct business with a small business in the United States. Communication barriers have been eliminated. Firms can communicate with each other cost-effectively and immediately through things like Skype/VOIP and email. This also holds true for the business-to-customer relationship with the substantial role eCommerce plays for the majority of the population. Secondly, I believe the dissemination of information is another significant change. Questions and curiosities that may have taken a vast amount of personal time and research can now be accessed almost instantaneously via a cell phone with apps like Wikipedia. Similarly, one can even attend school without ever stepping foot into a classroom. [[User:JeffKimble|JeffKimble]] 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

With digital technologies, access to information is available for everyone to access immediately. This can have both positive and negative consequences, depending on your vantage point. Consider WikiLeaks.org: For the government, it represents a gross breach of national security, but for concerned citizens, such organizations provide a public service, forcing the government to be more transparent. This raises a number of important questions regarding freedom of speech, privacy, regulatory controls, and even third parties on the web that host or store popular/unpopular content on their servers. Who has the authority to say what content is appropriate for public consumption? Anyone with access to the internet can publish anything they want, and unlike WikiLeaks, may make no attempt at redacting sensitive material. As Zittrain points out, the internet was designed to be “generative”; it was created to “accept any contribution”. Should the government have the power to censor such content, even if it stored outside of U.S. jurisdiction? If so, where does this censorship end? [[User:Joymiller|Joymiller]] 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Instant consumption of accessible information in an international context. Users have the ability to obtain as well as post unfiltered real-time data through an assortment of social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. As the speed of information increases through these media sources, it becomes more difficult to verify the legitimacy of these sites. Readers must process the unfiltered information analytically and are obligated to perform own due diligence. Big business and government have acknowledged the use of social media as a tool to create a more efficient marketing plan through sentiment analysis. [[User:Szakuto|Szakuto]] 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very interested in the digital divide from generational, economic, and geographic perspectives. When I was living in South Africa, the impact of slow, unreliable, and expensive Internet controlled by an entrenched monopoly had a very noticeable effect on my organization's ability to meet international expectations and on the degree to which people were willing and able to interact with new technologies. As certain regions blaze ahead digitally, it seems that other regions will only fall further behind the rapidly increasing expectations for connectivity, productivity, and innovation. I’m reminded of a section of Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion (which I admittedly haven’t read recently so apologies for mangling this) where he discusses a window in the the 1970s where Africa had an opportunity to be competitive with Asia in manufacturing and the textile industry but, missing its opportunity, was unable to find a competitive toehold later resulting in severe economic ramifications. I’m interested in exploring how disparities in opportunity and access can be addressed and how the egalitarian, democratic ideals of many Internet users can be leveraged to reach out to people who are currently excluded from the system. [[User:Aditkowsky|Aditkowsky]] 02:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The most significant changes brought on by digital technologies have been the increased ease-of-access to information around the world, the result of which has been a domino effect still taking place. The transfer of technology that is studied in economics, where a lesser developed country gains from the investment of a richer one, is taking place in the form of the spread of information around the world. This mass transfer has triggered milestone events in academics, economics, science and government. Significant challenges that may come from these rapidly developing technologies will be a divide on the interpretation of what they were developed for ("social" news vs traditional news media) and ultimately if they can be used to improve the quality of life for the majority of people. [[User:Brendanlong|Brendanlong]] 02:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the most significant changes that digital technologies brought on us, is how we access information we are looking for. In the past, we relied on books and libraries to provide us with any kind of information even though most of it was outdated, but today we can gain access to any type of information within minutes and information that is up to date and always updating. With this, of course we have noticed challenges it has given us. We cannot know what information is reliable, and which is not. [[User:Erzhik|Erzhik]] 11:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In the recent years, advances in the digital technologies have changed the world communicate and the way we live. Information are accessible at our palm. It has decrease the distance of time and space as communication is now very convenient with the creation of smartphones and the various social media people use to keep in touch with each other. We also moved from being passive consumers to active creators of news which were not available for us before. The interactions we experience through the technology also created a new common ground for us to understand different culture and people from all around the world. However, the advantages of these connections also bring into light many questions. For examples, how those informations are used and where to draw the line of privacy in regards to what we share. [[User:Selina2012|Selina2012]] 14:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that people’s lives have changed drastically over the past years because of the Internet. From my point of view, I don’t need to go out and buy a newspaper to know what is going on, but simply turn on my computer and go on Wikipedia or any news website. Another example concerns communication; I live in Italy and yet I can follow lectures and be enrolled in a degree program without having to physically be in the classroom. A few years ago I interned at the District Attorney’s Office, and among other duties I was asked to search for criminal history of certain suspects; what I thought would be a lengthy task, involving thousands of paper files, actually took me less than a minute by accessing a specific online database. In conclusion, I feel that digital technologies have made life easier and have allowed people with limited resources to gain knowledge by simply surfing the web. [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Emanuele

While Arab Spring and Wikileaks immediately jump to mind when I think of major events and changes that were enabled by digital technologies, only recently did those events became a real force. While the freedom to immediately access an abundant amount of information (and information overload) in many countries is certainly a significant change brought on by digital technologies, the community should be seriously considered as well. I think our sense of community, for good and bad, has changed with the advent of digital technologies. You can be connected to so many people over the Internet in an instant and your community is independent of your geographical location. Examples include blogging, social platforms like Facebook, MMOs like WoW and Call of Duty, Quora, Reddit, and Internet Relay Chat (and tons more!). [[User:Aberg|Aberg]] 05:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The most profound challenges visible today regarding the advent of dynamic digital technologies seems to be the wanton attempts at futilely regulating internet access and use, (e.g. Stop Online Piracy Act, [SOPA], Protect Intellectual Property Act, [PIPA]), and a topic that Cory Doctorow refers to as "The Coming War on General Computation" (a topic that the introduction of Jonathan Zittrain's book, which has conveniently been assigned as required reading for this course, hints at discussing in some depth). The debate on legislature like SOPA and PIPA arrives at a question quite familiar to the citizens of a post 9/11 society (Patriot Act, NDAA 2012), should individual freedoms, privacy, or constitutional rights be violated in the interest of the rights of copyright holders or government interests? The answer, it seems, should of course be no. The debate, however, is somehow being held on the floors of the United States Congress, and Senate. With regard to general purpose computers, the discussion circles around special purpose devices. Zittrain calls the iPhone and the XBox "sterile appliances tethered to a network of control." Perhaps he's right, as mobile devices recently took heat for hosting key logging/location monitoring software made to fit on your cute little smartphone by Carrier IQ. Similarly Sony took heat for prosecuting hacker George "Geohotz" Hotz and Alex Egorenkov "graf_chokolo" of "fail0verflow" for installing Linux onto the Playstation 3 after Sony removed their "Other OS" support. The topic under debate here, should individuals be able to use something they purchased in legal ways to do whatever they see fit? Ultimately the challenges we face are indicative of the greatest advent to come out of the Technological Revolution, the ability for individuals to disseminate information and rally support against corporate and government interests.

Doctorow, Cory. "The Coming War on General Computation" Keynote Speech 28c3 Conference 2011. Video. Web 1/24/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

Doctorow, Cory. "The Coming War on General Computation" Keynote Speech 28c3 Conference 2011 Transcript. Web 1/24/2012.

https://github.com/jwise/28c3-doctorow/blob/master/transcript.md

Kravets, David. "Carrier IQ Explains Secret Monitoring Software to FTC, FCC" Wired 14 Dec 2011. Web 1/24/2012.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/carrieriq-ftc-fcc/

Wikipedia. "Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz." Web 1/24/2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America_v._George_Hotz

Zittrain, Jonathan ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It.'' Introduction. 2008 Yale University Press. HTML Version. Web 1/24/2012.

http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/6

[[User:BSK342|BSK342]] 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that digital technologies have increased the pace of life. For instance, a letter sent by original mail takes much longer to receive than one sent by email. This means that you can (and are expected to) reply much sooner too. Further, I think that digital technologies require a different set of skills for various professions. I am originally from The Netherlands and used to be a lawyer there. I find that it is not not only important how much you know, but also how fast you can find something, e.g. case law, rules and regulations or any informaton about a person or a company. The internet, but also various other (digital) databases, have made the latter much easier. The ability to use these digital technologies have become very important. Digital technologies have also a big impact on maintaining relationships. I live and have lived on another continent and in a different time zone for almost two years now, but thanks to Skype, Facebook, Linkedin, Whatsapp and email, I am still very much involved in and informed on the lives of my friends, family and former colleagues overseas.[[User:Marjolein Siegenthaler|Marjolein Siegenthaler]] 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In the social sphere, I would say that digital technology has brought people closer together because it is so much easier to communicate by email. There are even fast and, it seems, often successful services for mates to find each other.
In all of the social, cultural, and political areas, I think it is easier to sway the masses with trends and fashions, and many people easily follow along with whatever is portrayed as the in thing. News reaches people more quickly, and can easily be manipulated, depending on who is in control of the media. On the other side of the coin, social media such as Face Book, Skype, and Youtube make it possible for many opinions to be aired publicly, not only the voice of the news media. These capabilities were not so readily available before the spread of digital technologies.
Trade and commerce can be transacted much more quickly than ever before over the internet.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be quite remiss if I did not mention the numerous freedoms that digital technology, the internet included, provides. Not only is communication enabled on a greater, more accessible, real-time platform, but also the freedom of the content of that communication. While these freedoms have granted exceptional benefits, ranging from market-level trading (as is done between the European, East Asian, and American Markets), to revolutionary movements (the Arab Spring), they also come with drawbacks. These drawbacks are based upon the legal standing of communication in those countries where it can be an issue. Once digital technology is broken down to its basic form, it is merely a means of communication, no different than a print newspaper, a poster board, a phonograph, or a TV or radio signal. All of these forms of communication have limits on their communication, either through decency laws, copyright protection, or FCC regulation. The internet, or any digital medium for that matter, does not necessarily fall under a specific, current legal code, particularly because of the anonymity of the internet, including the anonymity of nationality. Unfortunately old legislation that is applied to current digital medium was written for tangible, real items, rather than virtual items as a digital medium. This creates the problem of controlling or regulating that medium to conform to established standards for non-digital medium, and unfortunately, that is increasingly difficult given the propensity of the digital world to exist outside of borders, and outside of jurisdictions.[[User:Nthib|Nthib]] 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To even begin to quantify the changes that technology has brought to our lives, good and bad, would be an enormous task. But, from a largely legal perspective, I would say that the greatest change in our societies and lives is our understanding of privacy. For ever piece of digital technology that we enjoy there are potential losses to our privacy. Right at this moment I am withing three feet of three different machines that could be used to not only track my location at any time, but could also be monitored to trove my emails, text messages, and phone calls. These "not really consented to" examples are only one aspect. In addition, we now live in a time when even the privacy afforded by something being in the past is lost. How many 15 year old girls out there will post racy pictures of themselves on facebook or tweet idiotic nonsense and have it reappear in decades to come because of the potentially indelible nature of the internet and all information fed to it. Also, we live in a time when almost any aspect of a person's life could be affected by their credit score, but it is at greater risk of violation than s preacher's daughter with a six pack. All our money and personal information is becoming virtual, yet there is no real protection against that being used; if someone wants it they will get it. It worries me that the risk of all this change in legal privacy is not entirely a reality to us yet.
[[User:Cmartis|Cmartis]] 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Along with all the good uses of technology available today, we cannot overlook that shady people and their organizations utilize those same tools to harm society and cultures. One example is Child trafficking which has grown in part as a result of the advances in technology and the use of the internet which vehicle makes the demand market grow tremendously and easily obtainable by traffickers and buyers worldwide. Secondly Auctions are held in live mode where a buyer or a john can view children’s’ photographs and make the deal all via his/her computer. Thirdly, child sex tourism is one of the world's largest industries, which also feeds off of electronic communications and child trafficking continues to grow rapidly, where it has surpass the illegal gun trade and perhaps it will surpass the illegal drug trade. It has become integrated into the economy of many countries. However it underscores the fact that child trafficking and slavery truly represent the trading of children as tinny commodities whom are traded for money and profitability increases with each trade, and the vicious cycle continues when advances in technology fallen into the wrong hands. Sophia 11:51, 24 january 2012 (UTC)

First thing that comes to mind is easy accessibility to information, how we quickly receive and disseminate data, and communicate with one another enabling new forms of human interaction through various devices, social media, news sites, etc . Also, new platforms that provide millions to rally against badly written legislation (SOPA/PIPA) or support various causes in developing countries, and voice political concerns/opinions that can now be heard on a global scale. As digital technologies have increased, we’ve seen a dramatic shift in how we use and link traditional communications such as mobile and TV, driving necessary recalibrations in advertising, commerce, agriculture, business, education, health, etc. It’s quite remarkable that a 19 yr old can start a blog from a remote location (parent’s house in Scotland) and turn it into one of the world’s largest news websites with 50+ million monthly page views and a substantially growing business with 50+ employees in just a short time. Or how the continuous spread of online education efforts are wearing down traditional views on schooling. Or how Google has completely changed the way we seek information and Facebook has revolutionized how we’re connected through social media becoming one of the world’s most powerful and universal platforms across many countries, ages, races, etc. Or how a 26 yr old professor is using machine-learning programs similar to what Google/Facebook uses to develop AI programs that uncover how genes lead to disease. These digital breakthroughs are reshaping and redefining industries, cultures, the way we interact, and changing our way of life around the globe.[[User:JennLopez|JennLopez]] 20:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I like to think about two big changes Internet provoked in communication. The first one is how it keeps turning tangible media obsolete, providing instant access to content that had to be transported. For books, as example, you have to go to a bookstore and if it was out of stock had to wait to arrive, something that changed to an instant buy behavior. The other point is how it changed the way we communicate with our family. We use to spend money on long-distance phone calls, that now are made using Skype. Not only this, the fact that you are not paying for each minute makes a huge impact on conversations, for some people making them longer chats.[[User:Andrepase|Andrepase]] 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the most significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies are the advent of tools for increased global communication. This includes e-mail, video conferencing, and social networking sites such as Facebook. E-mail has opened up a realm of possibilities for faster, easier, and more effective ways of communication. To provide an anecdotal example, people use email to communicate with everyone from their bosses to their grandparents. Moreover, other tools including video conferencing softwares like Skype and social networking websites like Facebook have revolutionized the way people connect on the internet, and de facto in the words of Mark Zuckerberg make the world a “more open and connected place.” [[User:Qdang|Qdang]] 22:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

When I think the most significant changes that digital technologies brought to us I automatically think how we changed our thoughts about how we use all the information that we receive and how this spread with a tremendous force. Now he have easily and instantaneously access to any information in any place around the world and this changed our feelings because now the people feel more powerful to use this information. Nowadays, when we receive an important information that has an impact on our lives, we feel powerful to do something, pro or against it. This can be seen in small and big scale, from city issues to big discussions as recently MegaUpload case and SOPA.[[User:Priscila|Priscila]] 03:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The internet has changed our lives in many different ways from how we receive information to how we purchase goods and interact with one another. But the internet has had a tremendous impact on politics, both in how we receive political news and how we can support political campaigns.

People can almost instantaneously learn of a political event, whether that event is a controversial remark by a politician in an interview, a new stance on an issue, or commentary made by the news media on a debate or speech. Our ability to quickly access information from the internet allows the court of public opinion to change rapidly in reaction to a political event.

The internet has also affected how politicians can raise funds for a campaign. While traditional fundraising methods such as dinners and mail-in donations will continue, the internet has allowed politicians to raise large funds in short periods of time from a swatch of individual donors and often donations are no more than a couple hundred dollars.[[User:Jimmyh|Jimmyh]] 17:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the noteworthy socio-culture change by digital technologies is that it has brought brought the world closer to each other. There is more appreciation of differences in societies and culture through sharing of news and knowledge by internet and media. A person sitting in Asia is now more aware of western culture than he/she was 20 years ago. Politically, it has helped get more information about the political figures - both good and bad information. Politicians in turn can reach out to more people through emails,twitter and social online networks. From the perspective of economy, it has started the whole wave of globalization and off shoring. And through that wave, it has indirectly, increased per capita income of people in developing countries. For example, Brazil, Russia, India and China have been a big beneficiary. It has created some new challenges as well. It has become easier for people to hurt companies and governments through hacking. Terrorist can connect with each other more easily. It is easy to spread unrest in a country through online networks. This unrest can be viewed as positive or negative impact depending upon your political beliefs. [[User:Pgaur|Pgaur]] 04:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The web has afforded an access and visibility of information that had been previously unachievable. Content—now digitized as bits in a decentralized system—becomes reproducible and is potentially seen by far greater audiences. This technological shift has allowed for far more expansive spheres of production, circulation, and interaction. A young kid can quickly shoot a video using a digital camcorder, share the clip with an audience with YouTube, and interact with fans he may never have even anticipated (and I am not one of them, Justin Bieber). The top-down, gatekeeper-ish broadcast models of old media are at least threatened by this disruption. What web users may understand as enabling productive possibilities and participatory culture, has also been derided as the reason for copyright infringement, cheapened and superfluous content, as well as several dying industries.

But as we've noted, virtual networks are in fact made possible by a very physical network, divvied up among telecom companies beholden to commercial interests and legal regulations. The digital ecosystem, in this context, appears far less open than we might have originally imagined. Nation-states, as we have seen in the France/Yahoo! case or the Great Firewall of China, can block unwanted content. And of course, as Goldsmith and Wu point out, these technologies for censorship are the same technologies which allow for geographically targeted ads. What's more, these ads are no longer simply geographically targeted—but socially and personally targeted as well: anonymity and privacy seem like past relics, especially if we consider how platforms like Facebook and Google now enforce a user identity—complete with an archive of friends, past behavior, search terms, and stated interests—that extends into other corners of the web. The way in which users negotiate and undermine all these restrictions—especially in cultural and social contexts—will be of particular interest to me in this course. [[User:Michaels|Michaels]] 06:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2012-01-31T06:03:34Z

Michaels: /* Class Discussion */