Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-02-26T20:10:38Z

Phildade: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-02-26T20:01:55Z

Phildade: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-02-26T20:01:24Z

Phildade: /* Comments */

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2013-02-12T21:29:47Z

Phildade: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 12'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

Our guest speaker this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rfaris Rob Faris], the Research Director of the Berkman Center, who has been heavily involved in broadband infrastructure policy and research.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction)

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/bandwidth-race-plan/ Susan Crawford, Wired, We Can’t All Be Google’s Kansas: A Plan for Winning the Bandwidth Race (Wired)]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* Dawn Nunziato, ''Virtual Freedom'' (Chs. 1 & 7) (''pending'')

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 12th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
Great Articles about Bill Clinton advocating for Nat'l Broadband Network (Relating to Benkler)

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/378670/clinton-businesses-need-korean-broadband-speeds

http://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/bill-clinton-advocates-us-50-billion-dollar-nbn.html

[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 16:28, 12 February 2013 (EST)
***

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>
Weekly Response by TAG

Benkler discussed in his paper, the Next Generation Connectivity, was intriguing to me. To examine how the United States is lagging in the transition from broadband to the next generation technology. He stated, "High capacity networks are seen as strategic infrastructure, intended to contribute to high sustainable economic growth and to the core aspects of human development." I am in agreement with this view. By limiting access by weaker technology it will hurt economic growth and future development of countries.

Competition is paramount in the advancement of technology and the industry as a whole. The open access policies allow for a competitive market to allow for innovation to take hold. The way to maximize access is to allow for a wireless/nomadic platform, which will reach all the corners of the world. Countries which have invested in these areas have seen better results. The lack of competition is what has been a material flaw in the United States armor, causing them to drop back in the pack. These lack of freedoms and choices is what Adam Theirer was speaking about in his article. With new players like Google entering into the equation, it will only be a matter of time before access and affordability will be attainable by all. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:19, 6 February 2013 (EST)

*****

Thierer’s naive opposition to the “centralized planning” of Internet policy explicitly surrenders responsibility for the governance of computer networks to the callous ambivalence of the marketplace. The power to restructure and redesign human relations that entities like Google and Facebook so epitomize inheres the danger of an Internet operated on behalf of the profiteers. To the extent that corporate superpowers attain the ability to “oversee” or “govern” the substantive communities of the Internet in the manner that powerful states have come to exert power over physical territories, the revolutionary potentialities of the Internet will be lost to engineers working on behalf of shareholders. This prospect is perhaps more dangerous than the threat of explicit state control of the Internet.

[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 20:27, 8 February 2013 (EST)

******

Net neutrality is a concept that gets confusing pretty fast, so I attempted to summarize background on the issue in less than 500 words. While I originally wrote the following for this week's class, I also posted it on a friend's blog about current issues. Anyway here is the piece:

Net Neutrality (NN) is the idea that all information that flows across the Internet – all content, platforms, data, applications, etc – should be treated equally. In the U.S., Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Time Warner only charge you for the speed of data transfer at a monthly rate. They do not themselves charge you for accessing certain types of content over other types of content, which IS what they do for cable television. Proponents for NN want to keep the Internet an open and free communication tool rather than a controlled, walled garden like cable. There are primarily two kinds of debates going on here: 1.) whether NN should be preserved as the core architecture of the Internet and 2.) whether and how NN should be regulated by the government.

Let’s first consider what neutrality means as it relates to a network's design. As Tim Wu points out, the electric grid is an example of a neutral network because people are free to use it as they please. The electric grid does not give special treatment to certain appliances over others – you can plug in your toaster just as easily as your AC. Similarly, the Internet was conceived as a neutral network. Its pioneers envisioned a democratized “network of networks,” one that could not be “owned” by a corporation or government and as a result fostered enormous innovation and economic growth.

Without NN, proponents fear ISPs would become too powerful a centralized force and gain an unfair business advantage. Specifically, ISPs could block sites they deem to violate copyright law, favor traffic to their owned and operated sites, slow down traffic to competitive threats, or adopt “fast lanes” for customers willing to pay more. To take one recent example, Comcast was accused of stifling traffic to Netflix in order to nudge users towards Comcast-owned Xfinity for video streaming.

Opponents to NN claim that offering different “Internet subscriptions” for different kinds of content actually gives consumers more choice. If someone just wants email and google search, they could pick the appropriate plan. And also gain better quality of service for what they want to do. Furthermore, there are indeed some types of information, such as spam, malware, and illegal content, that is presumably worth filtering. Yet proponents of NN worry that drawing lines between “good” and “bad” could encroach freedom of speech, since such categories can be subjectively interpreted on the Internet.

Even if people agree that the Internet should be a neutral network, there is a whole other debate of how to enforce this. Net neutrality laws first attracted attention in the early 2000s and have gone back and forth towards both sides. In the most recent regulations of 2010, the FCC Open Internet Order aimed to prevent ISPs from blocking or discriminating against rival websites. The rules did little to appease either side, however. NN advocates believed telecom companies could still charge some services more for supporting data-heavy content while NN opponents believed that the decisions about the Internet in general should be left up to the free market entirely. To this day, the debate rages on.

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 21:56, 10 February 2013 (EST)

******

Online freedom of speech should not differ from other forms of speech. In the article ''More Confusion about Internet “Freedom,”'' an interesting quote merits attention: “America’s Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to serve as a shield from government encroachment on our liberties, not as a sword for government to wield to reshape markets and speech according to the whims of five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC” (Thierer, 2011). Controversy surrounding Internet communication is ubiquitous and questions vis-à-vis control are complex. Online liberty is analogous to our daily lives; all individuals have the right to use the Internet in unique ways, contributing, responding, and shaping the infinite white spaces that exist. In our day-to-day lives (in the U.S.), we have similar freedoms to continuously pursue new opportunities. Our Constitution represents the framework that grants us these liberties, and those who assume power, whether elected or not, must continuously draw upon our founding ideologies. Online versus offline activities should not differ.

Concepts from this article are closely related to the ''Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace'', which states the following: “You have no sovereignty where we gather....We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one....I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us, etc., etc.” Although the boundaries of Internet regulatory control appear gray, one would think that nation states have the ultimate say (even if this may not be the case). How does the notion of control change when new elected officials assume power, or when countries lose democratic freedoms? Will cyber boundaries shift over time, as new generations emerge and we, as a global society, become more technologically advanced?

Another theme worth highlighting in this post, based on the readings this week, is the relationship between governments and corporations. In the U.S., special interest groups play an enormous role in elections, endorsing candidates and financing campaigns. Most Members of Congress are career-minded individuals, seeking to remain in office. If telecommunications giants support politicians, politicians must help telecommunications companies maintain revenues, correct? I have never researched lobbying activities within this industry, but after reading ''We Can’t All Be Google’s Kansas'', telecommunications lobbying immediately came to mind. In New Zealand, for example, government subsidies reduced barriers to entry and lowered overall costs, which is an interesting strategy that made an enormous market impact for diverse stakeholders (both on the buyer and seller ends). In the US, however, the telecommunications landscape is most likely very different, and the FCC plays an enormous regulatory role. Will this change over time, as new high-speed generations emerge? If so, will the FCC assume more control or will markets become more liberalized? What role will election financing play as telecommunications expand? In the current U.S. telecommunications environment, how are distinct market monopolies and/or oligopolies determined for companies such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T? I have always been curious about the demographic/regional segmentation processes that these corporate giants have control over, affecting Internet speed, pricing, and associated services. Those who live in New York City have different telecommunications options than those who live in Lincoln, Nebraska…how, when, and where are these decisions made?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 06:29, 12 February 2013 (EST)
***********

This position of the understanding that telecommunications is to be cited according to social opinion is not necessarily the abdication of misunderstanding that a term can be something other than mere electrons and protons and neutrons or even just thought. The novice reader could assume that this form of telecommunication is merely jest is a person who can understand personification.

That addressed, the following is a useful rendition of the idology that although a school such as Harvard prides itself on the idea that people are meant to be earning degrees or not earning degrees is the misunderstandint that mere spelling issues make a person an idiot.

That addressed, now the application of suggesting Wikipedia is not a amateur area to be sonsidered the best of education like a piece of historical evidence concludes that these particles have mass and that the understanding is nothing there more interesting that the unknown representation of an alleged run on sentence, hyphen excluded.

More work needs to be addressed concerning this fascist ideal of "equality" just because the minority in control think cosmetics are the real problem with society, like making a wiki page "pretty". [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 11:30, 12 February 2013 (EST)

****
I enjoyed reading Crawford’s article on competitive perspective of Internet and services, while supporting this perspective with Bankler’s reading about networks, quantity, quality and price of a service or good within the market. By taking into consideration all markets in which goods and services are produced, Internet still remains a business activity that builds the market as a whole. In my view, competition is just a game that ensures that supply meets the demand functions in an efficient manner. Taking into example ATT internet, few months ago I was in the market for a high speed internet that I was willing to pay not more than $25 a month, how does it work? (they haven’t met their promises on the speed) While talking to ATT, they offered my 18mbps for $28 a month during the period of 12 months, ($41 after 10 months) would I get the service that I am paying for? I decided to contact Verizon, which offered $20 for 12 months, however the price doubles after 12 months. Dilemma! Competition within businesses in my view, stays somewhat fair based on services that they offer, however the main factor is for the customer to define which product is relevant for their use. By taking into consideration the competitors of this service, the question arises as to who controls the Internet? Thierer, in his article, explained it quite essential, by stating that “people do not sit still” that allow the Internet to have freedom by allowing people to co-operate and control the Internet.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:58, 12 February 2013 (EST)

****

Those who enjoyed Susan Crawford's writing in ''Wired'' may also want to check out her [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2012/12/crawford book launch at Berkman in December] and her [http://vimeo.com/59236702 interview last week with Bill Moyers]. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 12:43, 12 February 2013 (EST)

I read Susan Crawford's, Wired, We Can’t All Be Google’s Kansas: A Plan for Winning the Bandwidth Race, article with interest. As a Canadian I feel her pain. I pay nearly $70 per month for mediocre internet services (10 mbps download and like 35 gigs data or something). When I visit my grandma in florida I get the same package for less than $30 per month.
Although I hear understand her approval of the google plan, and my knowledge of physical network structure is rather limited, I would have thought that the future of the internet would not come over laying fiber optic wires, but by vastly increasing wireless data capability through cell phone carriers. I spent some time in Cambodia a few years ago and while they did not have the wired network and electricity grid required to power desktops and laptops, many of the younger generation were able to access the internet through cell phones and wireless tablets. Perhaps it is something we could learn from them. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 15:50, 12 February 2013 (EST)

*****

I really enjoyed Sam Biddle's Gizmodo article on "How to Destroy the Internet." It was illuminating, reassuring, and yet cautioning at the same time. It was illuminating in how it showed with specific examples how the internet, despite how virtual and disconnected from the physical it seems, is ultimately rooted in hard infrastructure built all over the earth. Theoretically I know the internet is the result of a network of networks running together, but that knowledge is sometimes forgotten when I search for wifi or use an ethernet cable to connect myself directly to the internet. Biddle's article was reassuring in that it showed how almost impossible it is to destroy the internet (despite the article's name). It was cautioning in that by showing how the internet is the result of hard infrastructure located in physical places, it points out how the sovereign government of those various places can control the internet by controlling those infrastructures. And so as an example, because China already has a strong grip on the internet within the country itself, it only needs to focus on upgrading the Great Firewall filtering system installed at the "borders" between China and the outside world (I'm thinking the big undersea cables), in order to maintain censorship over certain subjects. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 15:59, 12 February 2013 (EST)

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2013-02-12T21:28:19Z

Phildade: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 12'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

Our guest speaker this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/rfaris Rob Faris], the Research Director of the Berkman Center, who has been heavily involved in broadband infrastructure policy and research.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction)

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/bandwidth-race-plan/ Susan Crawford, Wired, We Can’t All Be Google’s Kansas: A Plan for Winning the Bandwidth Race (Wired)]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* Dawn Nunziato, ''Virtual Freedom'' (Chs. 1 & 7) (''pending'')

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 12th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
Great Bill Clinton article relating to Benkler
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/378670/clinton-businesses-need-korean-broadband-speeds
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 16:28, 12 February 2013 (EST)
***

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>
Weekly Response by TAG

Benkler discussed in his paper, the Next Generation Connectivity, was intriguing to me. To examine how the United States is lagging in the transition from broadband to the next generation technology. He stated, "High capacity networks are seen as strategic infrastructure, intended to contribute to high sustainable economic growth and to the core aspects of human development." I am in agreement with this view. By limiting access by weaker technology it will hurt economic growth and future development of countries.

Competition is paramount in the advancement of technology and the industry as a whole. The open access policies allow for a competitive market to allow for innovation to take hold. The way to maximize access is to allow for a wireless/nomadic platform, which will reach all the corners of the world. Countries which have invested in these areas have seen better results. The lack of competition is what has been a material flaw in the United States armor, causing them to drop back in the pack. These lack of freedoms and choices is what Adam Theirer was speaking about in his article. With new players like Google entering into the equation, it will only be a matter of time before access and affordability will be attainable by all. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:19, 6 February 2013 (EST)

*****

Thierer’s naive opposition to the “centralized planning” of Internet policy explicitly surrenders responsibility for the governance of computer networks to the callous ambivalence of the marketplace. The power to restructure and redesign human relations that entities like Google and Facebook so epitomize inheres the danger of an Internet operated on behalf of the profiteers. To the extent that corporate superpowers attain the ability to “oversee” or “govern” the substantive communities of the Internet in the manner that powerful states have come to exert power over physical territories, the revolutionary potentialities of the Internet will be lost to engineers working on behalf of shareholders. This prospect is perhaps more dangerous than the threat of explicit state control of the Internet.

[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 20:27, 8 February 2013 (EST)

******

Net neutrality is a concept that gets confusing pretty fast, so I attempted to summarize background on the issue in less than 500 words. While I originally wrote the following for this week's class, I also posted it on a friend's blog about current issues. Anyway here is the piece:

Net Neutrality (NN) is the idea that all information that flows across the Internet – all content, platforms, data, applications, etc – should be treated equally. In the U.S., Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Time Warner only charge you for the speed of data transfer at a monthly rate. They do not themselves charge you for accessing certain types of content over other types of content, which IS what they do for cable television. Proponents for NN want to keep the Internet an open and free communication tool rather than a controlled, walled garden like cable. There are primarily two kinds of debates going on here: 1.) whether NN should be preserved as the core architecture of the Internet and 2.) whether and how NN should be regulated by the government.

Let’s first consider what neutrality means as it relates to a network's design. As Tim Wu points out, the electric grid is an example of a neutral network because people are free to use it as they please. The electric grid does not give special treatment to certain appliances over others – you can plug in your toaster just as easily as your AC. Similarly, the Internet was conceived as a neutral network. Its pioneers envisioned a democratized “network of networks,” one that could not be “owned” by a corporation or government and as a result fostered enormous innovation and economic growth.

Without NN, proponents fear ISPs would become too powerful a centralized force and gain an unfair business advantage. Specifically, ISPs could block sites they deem to violate copyright law, favor traffic to their owned and operated sites, slow down traffic to competitive threats, or adopt “fast lanes” for customers willing to pay more. To take one recent example, Comcast was accused of stifling traffic to Netflix in order to nudge users towards Comcast-owned Xfinity for video streaming.

Opponents to NN claim that offering different “Internet subscriptions” for different kinds of content actually gives consumers more choice. If someone just wants email and google search, they could pick the appropriate plan. And also gain better quality of service for what they want to do. Furthermore, there are indeed some types of information, such as spam, malware, and illegal content, that is presumably worth filtering. Yet proponents of NN worry that drawing lines between “good” and “bad” could encroach freedom of speech, since such categories can be subjectively interpreted on the Internet.

Even if people agree that the Internet should be a neutral network, there is a whole other debate of how to enforce this. Net neutrality laws first attracted attention in the early 2000s and have gone back and forth towards both sides. In the most recent regulations of 2010, the FCC Open Internet Order aimed to prevent ISPs from blocking or discriminating against rival websites. The rules did little to appease either side, however. NN advocates believed telecom companies could still charge some services more for supporting data-heavy content while NN opponents believed that the decisions about the Internet in general should be left up to the free market entirely. To this day, the debate rages on.

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 21:56, 10 February 2013 (EST)

******

Online freedom of speech should not differ from other forms of speech. In the article ''More Confusion about Internet “Freedom,”'' an interesting quote merits attention: “America’s Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to serve as a shield from government encroachment on our liberties, not as a sword for government to wield to reshape markets and speech according to the whims of five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC” (Thierer, 2011). Controversy surrounding Internet communication is ubiquitous and questions vis-à-vis control are complex. Online liberty is analogous to our daily lives; all individuals have the right to use the Internet in unique ways, contributing, responding, and shaping the infinite white spaces that exist. In our day-to-day lives (in the U.S.), we have similar freedoms to continuously pursue new opportunities. Our Constitution represents the framework that grants us these liberties, and those who assume power, whether elected or not, must continuously draw upon our founding ideologies. Online versus offline activities should not differ.

Concepts from this article are closely related to the ''Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace'', which states the following: “You have no sovereignty where we gather....We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one....I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us, etc., etc.” Although the boundaries of Internet regulatory control appear gray, one would think that nation states have the ultimate say (even if this may not be the case). How does the notion of control change when new elected officials assume power, or when countries lose democratic freedoms? Will cyber boundaries shift over time, as new generations emerge and we, as a global society, become more technologically advanced?

Another theme worth highlighting in this post, based on the readings this week, is the relationship between governments and corporations. In the U.S., special interest groups play an enormous role in elections, endorsing candidates and financing campaigns. Most Members of Congress are career-minded individuals, seeking to remain in office. If telecommunications giants support politicians, politicians must help telecommunications companies maintain revenues, correct? I have never researched lobbying activities within this industry, but after reading ''We Can’t All Be Google’s Kansas'', telecommunications lobbying immediately came to mind. In New Zealand, for example, government subsidies reduced barriers to entry and lowered overall costs, which is an interesting strategy that made an enormous market impact for diverse stakeholders (both on the buyer and seller ends). In the US, however, the telecommunications landscape is most likely very different, and the FCC plays an enormous regulatory role. Will this change over time, as new high-speed generations emerge? If so, will the FCC assume more control or will markets become more liberalized? What role will election financing play as telecommunications expand? In the current U.S. telecommunications environment, how are distinct market monopolies and/or oligopolies determined for companies such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T? I have always been curious about the demographic/regional segmentation processes that these corporate giants have control over, affecting Internet speed, pricing, and associated services. Those who live in New York City have different telecommunications options than those who live in Lincoln, Nebraska…how, when, and where are these decisions made?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 06:29, 12 February 2013 (EST)
***********

This position of the understanding that telecommunications is to be cited according to social opinion is not necessarily the abdication of misunderstanding that a term can be something other than mere electrons and protons and neutrons or even just thought. The novice reader could assume that this form of telecommunication is merely jest is a person who can understand personification.

That addressed, the following is a useful rendition of the idology that although a school such as Harvard prides itself on the idea that people are meant to be earning degrees or not earning degrees is the misunderstandint that mere spelling issues make a person an idiot.

That addressed, now the application of suggesting Wikipedia is not a amateur area to be sonsidered the best of education like a piece of historical evidence concludes that these particles have mass and that the understanding is nothing there more interesting that the unknown representation of an alleged run on sentence, hyphen excluded.

More work needs to be addressed concerning this fascist ideal of "equality" just because the minority in control think cosmetics are the real problem with society, like making a wiki page "pretty". [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 11:30, 12 February 2013 (EST)

****
I enjoyed reading Crawford’s article on competitive perspective of Internet and services, while supporting this perspective with Bankler’s reading about networks, quantity, quality and price of a service or good within the market. By taking into consideration all markets in which goods and services are produced, Internet still remains a business activity that builds the market as a whole. In my view, competition is just a game that ensures that supply meets the demand functions in an efficient manner. Taking into example ATT internet, few months ago I was in the market for a high speed internet that I was willing to pay not more than $25 a month, how does it work? (they haven’t met their promises on the speed) While talking to ATT, they offered my 18mbps for $28 a month during the period of 12 months, ($41 after 10 months) would I get the service that I am paying for? I decided to contact Verizon, which offered $20 for 12 months, however the price doubles after 12 months. Dilemma! Competition within businesses in my view, stays somewhat fair based on services that they offer, however the main factor is for the customer to define which product is relevant for their use. By taking into consideration the competitors of this service, the question arises as to who controls the Internet? Thierer, in his article, explained it quite essential, by stating that “people do not sit still” that allow the Internet to have freedom by allowing people to co-operate and control the Internet.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:58, 12 February 2013 (EST)

****

Those who enjoyed Susan Crawford's writing in ''Wired'' may also want to check out her [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2012/12/crawford book launch at Berkman in December] and her [http://vimeo.com/59236702 interview last week with Bill Moyers]. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 12:43, 12 February 2013 (EST)

I read Susan Crawford's, Wired, We Can’t All Be Google’s Kansas: A Plan for Winning the Bandwidth Race, article with interest. As a Canadian I feel her pain. I pay nearly $70 per month for mediocre internet services (10 mbps download and like 35 gigs data or something). When I visit my grandma in florida I get the same package for less than $30 per month.
Although I hear understand her approval of the google plan, and my knowledge of physical network structure is rather limited, I would have thought that the future of the internet would not come over laying fiber optic wires, but by vastly increasing wireless data capability through cell phone carriers. I spent some time in Cambodia a few years ago and while they did not have the wired network and electricity grid required to power desktops and laptops, many of the younger generation were able to access the internet through cell phones and wireless tablets. Perhaps it is something we could learn from them. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 15:50, 12 February 2013 (EST)

*****

I really enjoyed Sam Biddle's Gizmodo article on "How to Destroy the Internet." It was illuminating, reassuring, and yet cautioning at the same time. It was illuminating in how it showed with specific examples how the internet, despite how virtual and disconnected from the physical it seems, is ultimately rooted in hard infrastructure built all over the earth. Theoretically I know the internet is the result of a network of networks running together, but that knowledge is sometimes forgotten when I search for wifi or use an ethernet cable to connect myself directly to the internet. Biddle's article was reassuring in that it showed how almost impossible it is to destroy the internet (despite the article's name). It was cautioning in that by showing how the internet is the result of hard infrastructure located in physical places, it points out how the sovereign government of those various places can control the internet by controlling those infrastructures. And so as an example, because China already has a strong grip on the internet within the country itself, it only needs to focus on upgrading the Great Firewall filtering system installed at the "borders" between China and the outside world (I'm thinking the big undersea cables), in order to maintain censorship over certain subjects. --[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 15:59, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Assignment 1 Submissions

2013-02-12T20:50:56Z

Phildade: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* (Name or Pseudonym)

* (Link to rule)

* (Link to article)

* (Link to your submitted report)

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

Mattyh (Matthew Haney)

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

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

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

***

Admits

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

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

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

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

*****

Dear Alice

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

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

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

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

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

'''Pseudonym:''' interesting comments

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

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

'''What the rule is?'''

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

'''Why this matters?'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Why you chose it?'''

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

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

[[File:LSTUEdit]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Bibliography'''

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

AaronEttl

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

***

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

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

***
HGaylor:

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

***

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

***

J6428

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Cacioppo

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

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

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

GregB23

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

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

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

Michael Keane

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

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

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

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

***
Phildade (Phillip Dade)

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

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

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

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2013-02-06T00:03:32Z

Phildade: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 5'''

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

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

[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/IS2013_Class_2_Slides.pdf '''Download slides from this week's class.''']

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

</onlyinclude>
== Assignment 1 ==

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

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
For those of you with a stomach for south park, here is funny episode about when kyle accepts an iTunes agreement without first reading it...
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 19:03, 5 February 2013 (EST)

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Prepared by TAG

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

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

**********

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

**********

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

***********

Two separate but related thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

*****
“Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born.”
― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Grand Inquisitor

"While I am fully supportive of the need to combat intellectual piracy, specifically dealing with foreign rogue digital theft sites, legislation must not impede freedom of expression on the internet and online innovation. We must work to find an approach that protects content and the freedom of distribution and technology that is smart and targeted without stifling the innovators and entrepreneurs that make San Francisco and the Bay Area so vibrant."
Nancy Peolosi February 2012 Letter to constituents regarding SOPA

“No one who uses the Internet on a regular basis needs reminding about the perils of spam, phishing, data breaches, hackers, viruses, spyware, and denial of service attacks that make up part of the modern Internet traffic. Almost all such problems can be chalked up to generative systems; closed systems, like the Xbox 360, TiVo, and the PS3, may have their own issues but don't regularly experience the same problems.
It's no wonder that, in the face of such threats, many users would prefer something simpler and locked-down in exchange for security. But it's not just end users who run into problems with generative devices and networks; governments and content owners would both prefer devices and networks that could be monitored and controlled at least a little more tightly. Attempts to alter the fundamental PC architecture in such a way that it is "trusted" (by content owners and third-parties, at least) have met stiff resistance on the part of buyers, who now instinctively view to computers as fully generative devices that should remain under their personal control.”
Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from Ars Technica)

I would argue that even before we decide on a structure to view the internet and digital technologies through, we need a clear understanding of how we, human beings, interact with our environments.
Here, in the United States, we seem perfectly happy to give away freedoms guaranteed by our constitution in the name of safety. And Dostoevsky’s quote shows we are not alone in that.
We can look at legal frameworks, or technological frameworks, but ultimately we are human beings, and though the internet may be the most amazing tool we have yet to develop, I would assert we do not have a particularly good track record when it comes to preserving our freedoms, or valuing our public goods.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-01-28T20:21:01Z

Phildade: /* Class Discussion */

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

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

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

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

'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)</div>

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

******