Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2013-05-15T00:25:09Z

User777: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big>

== Instructions ==

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

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

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

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

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

==Submissions ==

Name:Jaclyn Horowitz / Jax
Title: “If you don’t know, now you know”: Rap Genius and Meaningful Ignorance
Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Final_RG.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*Name: Becca Luberoff
*Title: Creating and Maintaining a Safe and Supportive Environment in Online Mental Health Communities: A Comparative Study of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and HealthyPlace.com
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Final.docx
--[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 01:34, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*Pseudonym: interestingcomments (Student ID#10789842)

*Title:Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?
A comparative observational study of two publically traded company message board communities

*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Interesting_comments_5.10.13TAG_LSTU_Assignment_.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:02, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

****
*Pseudonym: Raven
*Title: A Conversation That Can Change the World
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Final_Paper.docx
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:39, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
****

*Name or Pseudonym: sridder
*Title: Social Disorganization Theory Proves that Social Commerce Reduces Internet Fraud
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Sridder_Final.docx
[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 13:25, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Pseudonym: DearAlice

Title: One Company, Different Social Media Platforms, Different Conversations

Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/2013-05-12_DearAlice_Assignment_Final.docx

--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 20:55, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

*Name: Rich
*Title: Is Wikipedia an Open Collaborative Effort or a Despotic Hierarchy
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Control_Final_Project_May_12_2013-Modified.docx
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 14:16, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

*Name: Milena Grado
*Title: How Does "Reclame Aqui" Avoid Bias?
*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Finalproject_milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 18:14, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
***
*****
*Name or Pseudonym: MichaeleKeane
*Title:A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_5_Final_ver9_keane.docx
*[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 22:08, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
*****
*Name or Pseudonym: AaronEttl
*Title: The Successful Balance Achieved By Kickstarter
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Final.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 08:59, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or Pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Title: Lawbuzz: The Effects of a SLAPP Law Suit on Anonymous Forum Participation
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Joshywonder_Final_Project.docx [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 11:37, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****
*Name or Pseudonym: DanielReissHarris
*Title: Piracy; the Source, the Cost and the Solution
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/DanielReissHarris_Final.docx
*[[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 11:47, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****

*Name or Pseudonym: Maria Jurado
*Title: Internet Regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Final.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 12:53, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****

*Name or Pseudonym: Zak Paster
*Title: Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Final_Project_Online_Giving-A_New_Fundraising_Era_5-14-13_vFinal.pdf
[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 13:31, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****

*Name or Pseudonym: Asmith
*Title: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_FinalProject.pdf
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:16, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****
*Name or Pseudonym: Kaley Sweeney
*Title: A Glance Inside the Hermit Kingdom: Instagram in North Korea
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Assignment5.docx
15:21, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or Pseudonym: Rebekah Judson
*Title: Twitter Gets Weird: On the Transgressive Humor and Community Practices of Weird Twitter
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:RjudsonweirdtwitterFINAL.doc
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 15:26, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or Pseudonym: Hunter Gaylor
*Title: Two swords against CISPA “A Comparative Analysis of the Methods Used Obtain Prevention of CISPA”
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Hgaylor_Final.docx&oldid=10445
[[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:39, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
***
*Name or Pseudom: Susan Goldstein
*Title: MOOCs: Higher Education for All?*
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Susan_Goldstein_Assignment5.docx
[[User:SusanGoldstein|SusanGoldstein]][[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 16:43, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Name or Pseudonym: JW
Title: Reddit Requests More Regulation
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/JW_Final.pdf
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Reddit.xlsx
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:05, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

****

* Name or Pseudonym: CyberRalph
* Title: ANONYMOUS, TWITTER, AND LESSIG'S REGULATORS AS A MEANS FOR PROTESTING CISPA
* Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment4_FinalDraft.docx

****

* Name or Pseudonm: Julian
* Title: Online Community: The Impact of Anonymous Discussion Forums on Political Outcomes
* Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Final.docx
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:29, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****

* Name or Pseudonm: Phil Dade
* Title: Sidecar : Manipulating constraints to control driver and passenger behavior and insure value for an entire community
* Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Dade_-_SideCar.pdf
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 18:00, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

****

* Name or Pseudonym: User777
* Title: UPSjobs page on the Facebook Platform
* Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:User777_Final.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 20:25, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
****

Assignment 4 Submissions

2013-04-30T23:26:44Z

User777: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''The deadline for this assignment has been extended to April 30th before class.''' Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment4," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment4.doc."

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

'''If you'd like peer feedback on an updated version of your rough draft, you can submit it here: [[Assignment 4 Peer Review]]'''

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name or pseudonym (example: Name_Assignment4.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. Please follow the format below:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Project title:
*Link to rough draft: (add your link here)

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

==Submissions==
*Name or pseudonym:Raven
*Project title: If Your Website is Full of Assholes, It's Your Fault
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Assignment_4.docx
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:55, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym: sridder
*Project title: Does Social Commerce Reduce Internet Commerce Fraud?
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Steve_Ridder_Assignment_4.docx

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 20:25, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Pseudonym: Dear Alice
Project title: One Company, Different Social Media Platforms, Different Conversations
Link to Draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/DearAlice_Assignment4.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:08, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym: Zak Paster
*Project title: Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_4_-_Final_Project_Draft_Online_Giving-A_New_Fundraising_Era_4-25-13.pdf
[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 22:41, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

Rich Cacioppo
Is Control of Free Speech and Expression on Wikipedia Sincere or Hypocritical
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Control_Final_Project_paper_Final_Draft_April_30_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 16:10, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****

{{Is Control of Free Speech and Expression on Wikipedia Sincere or Hypocritical|Rich Cacioppo|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Control_Final_Project_paper_Final_Draft_April_30_2013.pdf}} [[User:Rich|Rich]] 16:08, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
*Name: Milena Grado
*Project title: How Does Reclame Aqui Avoid Bias?
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment4milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:28, 26 April 2013 (EDT)
****
*Name or pseudonym: CyberRalph
*Project title: Anonymous and Their Use of Twitter to Leverage Lessig's Regulators as a Means for Attacking CISPA
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment4.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:46, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
****

*Name or pseudonym: joshywonder
*Project title: Lawbuzz.ca - Anonymous Forum Participation
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Joshywonder_Assignment_4.docx
[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 12:05, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym: interesting comments
*Project title:Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? A comparative observational study of two publically traded company message board communities
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Z_TAG_LSTU_Assignment_4_(1)_.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:45, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|File:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment4.pdf}}

****
* Name or pseudonym:Michael Keane
* Project title:A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community
* Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_4_Draft_ver5_keane.docx
*[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 12:03, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
****

Name or pseudonym: AaronEttl
Project title: The Successful Balance Achieved By Kickstarter
Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment4.docx [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:56, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or pseudonym: Maria
*Project title: Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jurado_Assignment4-1.pdf --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 15:28, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
****

{{AssignmentInfo|Mattyh|Yelp - throwing the baby out with the bathwater review?|File:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_4_Rough_Draft%2C_04302013.docx}}

****
{{AssignmentInfo|Susan Goldstein|MOOCs: Higher Education for All?|File:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Susan_Goldstein_Assignment4.docx}}
16:36, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

*Name or pseudonym:JW
*Project title: Reddit: Free Speech vs. Privacy Norms
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment4.pdf
[[User:JW|JW]] 16:51, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or pseudonym: Julian
*Project title: Online Community: The Impact of Anonymous Discussion Forums on Political Outcomes
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment4.docx
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:23, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

*****
*Name or pseudonym: Phildade
*Project title: Sidecar : Manipulating constraints to control driver and passenger behavior to insure value for an entire community
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Dade_-_Assignment_4_-_Final_Draft.pdf
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 17:37, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

****

*Name or pseudonym: Jax
*Project title: "It's Not Where You're From, It's Where You're At": Ignorance and the rank of Rap Genius
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Rap_genius_NEW_DRAFT.docx
17:42, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

***

Name or pseudonym: User777
Project Title: " UpsJobs on Facebook Platform"
Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:User777_Assignment_4.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 19:26, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
***

Privacy

2013-04-23T16:09:06Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 23'''

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

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

== Assignments ==

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Informing the Public in the Internet Age

2013-04-16T16:38:55Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 16'''

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

****

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

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

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

*****

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-09T16:46:38Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 9'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does this all have to do with the Internet and government control. I will tell you, it is a similar scenario, a similar mathematical formula in which the power is in the people, but until the people stop being conned they will never take it. Now, I am not and hope I do not sound like a Communist by our principals claims that we are a country, "By and for the People," and our only hope and salvation as a society is to wake up and become active participants and uncover the charades we are subject to by those we elect who under the color of authority are paper pushers.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 12:24, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
****
In my view, major corporations and government security departments have acknowledged that hacker break-ins are out of control within the Internet arena. Some companies are too fearful to join networks due to diverse software programs that could develop ample growing problems. Computer security in our days, is portrayed within usage of difficult passcode, however, is it enough? Hackers seem to carry the responsibility of security break-in, however are they truly liable for company’s loss? As clients demand security of their assets, the vulnerability of security breach highlights that it could not be protected eternally. Ample amount of money is spent on protecting devices that target the hackers, however do these systems support this protection, and why it is still an issue? With the advent of modern law, the characteristics of this issue seem to lack a common ground, which hackers and diverse security programs rely upon. And what are the rights of the government to seize documents and computer ware in case of the hacking incident? The responsibilities of system operators seem to be quite inadequate in comparison to a “true” right for protection. Current law acknowledges that a new threat is emerging where computer “criminals” would potentially be capable of industrial espionage and damaging infrastructures. How could the current law be altered or improved upon these various hacking frameworks? And what would be considered a freedom of information in this matter? How could the unauthorized theft be the primary focus of diverse corporation? And how vulnerability of various security measures could prevent drastic corporate or governmental invasions?
[[User:User777|user777]] 12:46, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

***

Assignment 3 Submissions

2013-03-29T14:57:28Z

User777: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 26. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment3," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment3.doc."

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

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

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)

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

==Submission Instructions==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.'''

==Submissions==

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

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

{{AssignmentInfo|Raven|If Your Website's Full of Assholes It's Your Fault|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Assignment_3.docx}}[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:24, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{AssignmentInfo|Julian|Online Community Discussion: Requiring Congressmen & Senators to Wear Logos of Their Financial Backers|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment3.rtf}}[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:28, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Tessa May|LinkedIn Outline| http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_Outline.docx}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Michael Keane|A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community| http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Keane_Assignment_3_Outline.docx}}[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:47, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|baughller|Video Takedown|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Baughller_Assignment_3.docx}}
[[User:Baughller|Baughller]] 19:43, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Kaley Sweeney
Instagram in North Korea
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:KaleySweeney_Assignment3.docx

{{AssignmentInfo|Rebekahjudson|Weird Twitter: Critique from Within?|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonoutline.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|BeccaLuberoff|Security and Online Mental Health Communities: A Comparative Study|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment3.docx}}<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 23:22, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|APhan|Privacy in Memes|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment3.docx}}

*Name or pseudonym: User777
*Description: UPSJobs and Internet
*Link to your outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:UPSjobs_Law_and_Internet.docx
[[User:User777|user777]] 10:56, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2013-03-29T14:56:36Z

User777: /* Submissions */

Assignment 3 Submissions

2013-03-29T14:54:52Z

User777: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 26. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Assignment3," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment3.doc."

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

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

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)

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

==Submission Instructions==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post.'''

==Submissions==

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

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

{{AssignmentInfo|Raven|If Your Website's Full of Assholes It's Your Fault|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Assignment_3.docx}}[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:24, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{AssignmentInfo|Julian|Online Community Discussion: Requiring Congressmen & Senators to Wear Logos of Their Financial Backers|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment3.rtf}}[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:28, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Tessa May|LinkedIn Outline| http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_Outline.docx}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Michael Keane|A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community| http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Keane_Assignment_3_Outline.docx}}[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:47, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|baughller|Video Takedown|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Baughller_Assignment_3.docx}}
[[User:Baughller|Baughller]] 19:43, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Kaley Sweeney
Instagram in North Korea
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:KaleySweeney_Assignment3.docx

{{AssignmentInfo|Rebekahjudson|Weird Twitter: Critique from Within?|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonoutline.doc}}

{{AssignmentInfo|BeccaLuberoff|Security and Online Mental Health Communities: A Comparative Study|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment3.docx}}<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 23:22, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|APhan|Privacy in Memes|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment3.docx}}

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:UPSjobs_Law_and_Internet.docx [[User:User777|user777]] 10:54, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-26T16:15:53Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 26'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

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

== Readings/Watchings ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lecture about the evolution of the Internet in contrast with SOPA and PIPA was quite interesting to listen. The PIPA act is viewed as a grant to the social and political reforms that enables the facilitation of piracy. Although many are opposed to both SOPA and PIPA Act, there is ample benefit that implements the decrease of the piracy rate in the United States along with the careful consideration of copyright effect. In my view, SOPA and PIPA would make diverse websites more inaccessible, which would prevent users for exercising their freedom of speech. Social problems would ultimately cost millions of dollars to support new technologies. These bills do portray an infringing benefit for copyright and pirated material that could distress the entertainment industry within the www. Most Internet users enjoy the freedom to surf, post, and explore the Internet, however online piracy is a real problem that Congress sees it as an issue. The debate about censorship involves diverse major bills that are designed to stop the copyright and piracy, but is it enough? Ample companies seek protection rights to their product or good, how limited the implication of censorship could come along? The vast majority of users seem to react on serious revisions to protect our rights as citizens, which will introduce a new prospective premise within the usage on free knowledge, and “limited” expression of speech. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:15, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
***

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-15T20:15:04Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 12'''

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

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

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings/Watchings ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

===Links From Adobe Connect Session===
WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/

More on WIPO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization

More on the DMCA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

Google frequently changes their algorithms: http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/25/technology/gaming_google/index.htm

A (not entirely impartial) analysis of the dajaz1 case: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml

Counter notice form on Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf

The Baby Dancing to Prince Story: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/home-video-prince/story?id=3777651

Sociological research on user understanding of copyright - http://alexleavitt.com/nocopyrightintended/

Low-Orbit Ion Cannon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Orbit_Ion_Cannon

Molly Sauter's Lunch Talk: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2013/01/sauter

A site that tracks some of the real-time cyber attacks around the world: http://map.honeycloud.net/

Neil Gaiman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman

Thrift Shop Music Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8mJJJvaes

Article on the UStream issue: http://io9.com/5940036/how-copyright-enforcement-robots-killed-the-hugo-awards

Copyright on Federal Government Works 17 USC 105: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105

Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

Retraction Watch's comments on what happened: https://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/anil-potti-posts-restored-to-retraction-watch-following-false-dmca-claim/

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

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

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

::Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would likely be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the Courts, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::Were NASCAR to do that expect me to argue the case for the student pro bono. :-) (By the way, the credit card slip argument was the best I could come up with as to a writing, but I think it's a failure as well.) More seriously, NASCAR can always exercise the rights of trespass law and remove someone once their presence was no longer welcome – and that right is what keeps NBC from cutting into Fox's exclusive coverage by buying a ticket and showing up. As to Google's role, it's worth nothing that Google's decision was not without a risk – by exercising its own discretion there what they did was remove their chance to benefit from the DMCA safe harbor, and thus exposing themselves for a potential contributory liability claim by hosting the material. Their decision to take that risk is very interesting, and not unlike how they would approach any other liability question outside of the DMCA world – they are immune from suit either way, and opt to decide based on their own interests. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 17:00, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

****

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

****

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

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

****

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

:That's a great point, Caroline. We'll be turning to privacy in more depth in [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Privacy April]. The decision to post something like that or not is certainly one that has some precedent - and every time there is a horrific event captured on camera there are extensive discussions concerning whether it should be posted. And, for what it's worth, YouTube does reserve the right in its [http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines community guidelines] to regulate those things on its end - that said, we've already seen and will see again the weaknesses in relying on intermediary censorship to solve content issues. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

::I, too, was going to make Caroline's point regarding the treatment of the footage of a violent injury or death. It seems to me that the fact that it depicts somebody's death would be sufficient justification to take the video down, assuming there was nothing newsworthy about the incident. Are we really surprised that NASCAR driving is dangerous? Do we need to see someone's grisly and gruesome death for evidence? Wouldn't words suffice? Doesn't Google, through YouTube, get to determine what they do and do not host on their servers? Are we confusing editing and good taste with censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:17, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::This is a small point, but I don't think the video actually depicts a person's death. There were a few serious injuries in the crash, but no one was killed. (At least my search of the news finds no such reporting.) And while the crash is troubling to watch (we certainly aren't requiring you to watch it, but it is embedded in the article for today's reading), it also is highly informative. The public outcry from the NASCAR video's wide circulation resulted in [http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2013/02/23/huge-car-crash-mars-nationwide-series-race-at-daytona/1941529/ reform to spectator conditions at NASCAR events]. Would words have sufficed? Possibly. And is Google serving as the ultimate arbiter right now? Definitely. But there are scores of examples in our history of when it took the world seeing a horrific situation in order to motivate action, so regardless of who makes the decision there are compelling reasons on both sides for having it disseminated or not. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:40, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

::::It's totally possible that the fact that it wasn't the scene of a death was evident to anyone viewing the clip closely. I just didn't watch closely. And I do appreciate the need to pressure event sponsors to ensure adequate public safety, especially if the attendees lack the good sense to manage that aspect of self-preservation for themselves. But must Google earn advertising revenue from the repeated viewing of another's misfortune? Or must Google pay for the hosting of such a video, if they cannot or will not earn revenue from hosting it? I don't think your point about whether we are viewing a death or a severe injury or merely a prolonged hospital stay is a minor one. I also don't think that we've been given enough evidence that Google has an obligation to host the video. However, I am willing to learn that that is because I haven't been paying sufficient attention. I don't mean to take censorship lightly, I hope that I don't. Nor do I mean to say that we should have some public morals squad, out removing videos that offend. I wouldn't want that either. I just would like to understand more clearly why it is in our best interests to tell Google what they can and cannot host on their servers, when what they are hosting could be offensive to many and the value the content provides to anyone is not clear. If you say that the existence of that video on YouTube saved lives, or provided some other public good, and you also say that we, the public, have given Google something other than our time and attention, something valuable that gives us the right to insist that they provide bandwidth to save lives, then ok. I can get behind that. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:51, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::::That's a great set of points. As to Google's right or reason for hosting it on YouTube, all I would add for perspective is the practical fact that having websites like YouTube substantially lowers the barriers to entry for participation online. (Imagine how tough a space this would be if everyone had to understand web publishing from DNS registration and CNAME setup through FTP through HTML in order to have a web page.) So all forms of online publication platforms - YouTube, Blogger, Twitter, Wordpress, Tumblr, Facebook, etc. – all serve an important value-added in that they lower the technical literacy necessary to get material online, and provide a platform that increases the likelihood that at least some network of people will see it. They, in effect, become the public squares of the online world. Should the profit, should they not, should they or the users decide what goes into the public debate – these are the really, really tough questions that we face now. What Section 230 does in the defamation/privacy world and Section 512 does in the copyright world is push a lot of the liability – and thus a lot of the legal pressure on the decisionmaking process, onto the user. But this doesn't mean the social media spaces will simply do what the user does – it can also mean that they can exercise their own editorial judgment based on their own values, and there's not much we can do as users to persuade them to change their mind. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 17:05, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Interesting reading for today’s class. In my view, the right to a free speech is the right to express ones’ thoughts without any alternative censorship by the government. But main questions are: does the first amendment protect imply the right to hear the speech? The Copyright Clause itself is an expressional of First Amendment values that powers congressional rights under free speech principle. How to treat unexceptional impulse of copyright that embraces the coherence of the First Amendment? Copyright law includes a number of free speech accommodations that requires a scheme of originality, but what are the principles of copyright legislation? In my view, the questions should bot be whether the challenged law is consistent with unchallenged laws but instead whether the challenged law is consistent with the Copyright Clause (whereas consistency also comes with a priority of values). Intersection of these domains, have the same values that are conflicting with each other within their constitutional accommodations of law.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
***

:The First Amendment, as it has been interpreted by the courts, includes within it a degree of a "right to be heard," but that has been limited in most circumstances to making sure that free speech rights are not pyrrhic by being without an audience - it does not generally allow an affirmative right of access to a particular fora other than certain publicly owned spaces (of which the Internet is not one). The degree to which the judiciary will exercise oversight over whether legislative action is consistent with the Copyright Clause is very, very weak, as was established in the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 same case] I flagged to Rich above. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Most arguments calling for stronger copyright right enforcement - such as those that support SOPA, PIPA, and the 6-strikes Copyright Alert System - base their argument on the billions of dollars lost to piracy, which itself can be divided to estimate the number of jobs lost in the United States.The two questions I always wonder are: are these numbers being exaggerated by the entertainment industry? And do these numbers truly reflect the real loss of the entertainment industry?

Although what I'm going to say is going to be mainly based on peer observation, I think it's worth noting. For this comment, I'll focus on music. I know people who place a higher value on property rights and insists on buying their music in cd form or from iTunes. These people actually DO view internet piracy as stealing and frown upon it. But I shall be honest and point out that these people also have more leisure money to purchase what they want.

On the other hand, I have also met people who are taking advantage of the internet to discover and "own" music that they would otherwise not buy if piracy options were not available. These are people who may or may not have had the leisure money, but nevertheless would never have spent money to "own" the music if piracy was not an option in the first place.

Then there are those who have no financial obstacles at all but argue that it is foolish to spend money when there obviously are ways to get the music freely. I think this group can be divided into those who would buy music if there was no piracy option and those who would not have spent money in the first place.

I really wonder if ideas like the Copyright Alert System would really boost the earnings of the entertainment industry (which is their true objective after all) or whether in the end these systems end up throttling the internet and the principles, such as free speech, that we think the internet should stand for.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 11:55, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

After reading the article ''A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement'', one important idea surrounding this topic became clear: we acknowledge copyright infringement when it directly affects us. Many ignore online copyright, because it is often embedded in the actions that people take when using the Internet. In other words, some may be committing illegal acts without realizing it, while others do so purposely. Whether unintentional or intentional, one must contemplate both sides of the copyright law debate: protecting the creator or restricting one’s freedom of speech.

I think one comment in Erin McKeown’s blog captures the essence of the other articles: ''“I'd also like us all to acknowledge that the current copyright system, the unmovable boulder in the stream, rather than protecting rights holders and acting as a deterrent to infringement, is in its very complications a shelter for those who use others' material without permission and an obstacle to those who would like to legally use or remix content.”'' Due to the complexity, loopholes, and associated legal processes surrounding copyright infringement, many can often remain unprotected. Some agree and others do not…what do you think?

SOPA’s enactment seems to make this environment even more convoluted. It gives tools to the U.S. Attorney General to combat “foreign infringing sites,” but sites with...''“a domain name registered outside the U.S. seems to count as ‘foreign,’ even if it’s run by an American company and hosted on U.S. soil. Id., at § 101(5)-101(8)”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011). This policy not only places a lot of companies in the line of fire, but it also puts an enormous amount of responsibility in the hands of corporate Executives. ''“The overwhelming controversy regarding SOPA’s public remedies regards the provision allowing a court to order a service provider–essentially an unwitting middleman–to take all 'technically feasible and reasonable measures' to block an infringing site”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011).

The gray area of accountability that we read about a few weeks ago, in relation to the Anti-Muslim Youtube video, emerges again when analyzing online copyright laws. Who is ultimately held responsible? Why should Internet-related companies decide between freedom of speech and/or copyright infringement (vs. the government)? If the private sector is expected to assume new roles and responsibilities, how can companies truly play this role, in terms of time, resources, and judgment calls? ''“The burden of reviewing user-submitted content – every blog post, every video, every image – would be impossible for a company to manage, and companies would have likely stuck with the Web 1.0 model of publishing edited, vetted content instead of moving to a Web 2.0 model where users create the content”'' (Zuckerman and Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, 2012).

As a final thought, I’d like to second the statement above, by Asellas. I agree that the balance between copyright and free speech is an interesting controversy. I also agree with your final statement, illustrating the true definition of copyright protection, i.e., copyright defends original expression that merits protection under the U.S. legal system. The complexity and associated controversies surrounding “original expression” are ubiquitous—there are many “shapes and sizes” of original expression, which in many ways, makes this current debate so challenging to decipher. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 13:24, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Super Bust and The In Rem Forfeiture paper presented further disturbing evidence of the disconnect between how the internet operates and how it is governed. It seems to me that the judges may not have understood that the domain names were property with potential income streams attached, and that the crimes they were accused of were commercial and non-urgent. I'd like to think that because the alternative seems so much more disturbing. Possibly again I am being naive. I have seen those forums, though not the chat rooms, and I agree, that if you are looking for a quick way to stream or download free movies, books, music and TV shows, you'll find plenty there to help you. I was interested to learn that these discussions were protected by the First Amendment, I think I'd just assumed that there were too many of them to shut down. I am, however, coming around to believe that something effective should be done about the piracy of these works. We have, over the last ten years or so, seen a tremendous transfer of value from the movie studios and music publishers to those willing to download illegally. It seems to me it is time to capture that value and account for it. I think, if I thought about it at all, I justified arguing against devoting law-enforcement to controlling piracy to the assumption that these companies were shifting revenue outside the U.S. to avoid taxes. I think I found it distasteful that they would then turnaround and insist that we, the public, help them capture lost income. (I certainly am not willing to pay the taxes to support jail time for those downloading content illegally.) I understand that many people who download without purchasing would not purchase, as many who stream without paying would also not purchase. I do believe though, that they would do something else, and I'm wondering if we are capturing that aspect accurately. I'm also wondering if somehow, we were able to capture that value, it might pay for some or all of the needed up-grade to our internet infrastructure. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

With regards to the DMCA and, more specifically, the DMCA "safe harbor" provisions, it seems to me that anything that facilitates the access to or general interaction with the Internet (such as ISPs or search engines) should not be held responsible for specific content. However, services such as web hosting and individual websites that allow public posting should be held responsible for the information that they are actively providing the public since they are the one and only means by which that information can be accessed.

After hearing the Slung-lo song, I have to admit that while it's not my typical genre of music, the tune is catchy and to my untrained and unprofessional ear there is no doubt whatsoever that the song was copied. However the article seemed to focus too much on the emotions of the legal battle and less on the legal technicalities and nuances, which would have been much more interesting.

Finally, one comment with regards to the so-called seizure of domain names. In the instance referenced by the Super Bust posting, as best as I can tell, the government only succeeded in forcing the registry redirect nameserver requests and did not succeed in blocking all traffic to those sites. In practical terms, if someone wanted to access these websites, all they would presumably have to do is enter the IP address into their web browser and they would still have full access.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 17:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

***

The advent of the six-strikes rule speaks of the integrated and basically unambiguous power of Empire to replicate and self-instantiate over the voiceless objections of the Multitude. In these spaces, I have previously discussed critiques of the ontology of intellectual property. In particular, I have sought to cast doubt on the doctrine that the Internet promotes or even allows a harmonious equilibrium of online behaviors in which the distribution of power is subject to communitary consensus. In no sense should these attacks be construed as hostile to the project of copyright enforcement as such. Although prephilosophical fallacies involving the "natural rights" of "creators" mislead us with mellifluous rhetoric, the reality of bourgeois governance remains, as always, rooted in the persistence of the state. It is the height of unintentional self-destruction for the disorganized proletariat to imagine that it can continue its expropriative rampage against the culture industry, for the endless and inward-curling systems of Empire still function unambivalently in the service of the elite. Whether or not this is to be "desired" is essentially irrelevant, as the "problem," so modeled, is insoluble. It is unrealistic to imagine a more indulgent regime with regard to copyright infringement; internal tensions between the cultural, governmental, and telecommunicative modules of the Empire have granted 5- count em, 5- opportunities for unaccountable criminality to the Multitude. To imagine the possibility of another world is impractical and self-delusive.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:30, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

***

This section of Editing Copyright Part 2, is about Enforcement and Balances, and it spoke a lot about plagiarism and identity froad. Hereis why.
Who cares? Not Wittgenstein!
Now what? PDF's are more secure than webpages.
What's next? A system of infalalibility because internet communication is not the next thing enymore. So basically What's next is not a sitcom.
Is this really worth mentioning? No.
What is this author's opinion? Get a life!
To conclude, merely the act of enforcement is not something Balances pertain to because Enforcement is a power of the Judiciary only at a policing level; whereas, Balances are required by the Court, good to be in the House and Senate, and are a sign of a good Democratic President. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 17:41, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

***

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-12T15:26:33Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2013-03-05T16:45:31Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. Today’s class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The second half of assignment 2 (commenting on prospectuses) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics] (read only Who Can Claim Copyright?, What Works Are Protected?, What is Not Protected by Copyright?, How to Secure a Copyright, and How Long Copyright Protection Endures)

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]

* [http://blip.tv/lessig/it-is-about-time-getting-our-values-around-copyright-2847688 Lawrence Lessig, It is About Time: Getting Our Values around Copyright] (watch first 6 minutes)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-insane/ James Grimmelmann, Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Video Copyright Went Insane]

* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]

* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, ''Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy''] (Introduction only)

* Creative Commons, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko A Shared Culture] (video, watch all) and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 Spectrum of Rights]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/ Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
The gloss we're going in class on copyright terms is a bit simplified. For a more detailed chart discussing copyright duration, check out the chart developed by [http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Cornell's Copyright Information Center].

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

I was somewhat surprised by the tone of Julian Sanchez', Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy. It reads as if it were written by some type of torrent-freak railing against legitimate business, and is about as informative. While his fundamental point that it is hard to quantify the harm copyright piracy does in terms of economic loss and jobs lost is reasonable, he does nothing to argue against the undeniable fact that the United States (and Canada) do lose jobs and money due to the piracy. Sanchez' point "When someone torrents a $12 album that they would have otherwise purchased, the record industry loses $12, to be sure. But that doesn't mean that $12 has magically vanished from the economy. On the contrary: someone has gotten the value of the album and still has $12 to spend somewhere else" is just flat out wrong. It may be valid when an American steals from an American, or a Canadian steals from a Canadian, but it does not apply when a Canadian steals from an American, or more problematically, when China and the rest of the world steal from America. The US trade deficit with China is enormous. This is due in quite a significant part to the fact that we import and pay for enormous amounts of manufactured goods from China, while China imports, but does not pay for enormous amounts of IP from the US and Canada (think fake Apple phones, hacked MS office, every single hollywood movie and song, serious technical data and research). While Sanchez might not want to pay $100 for MS Word or $20 for a movie, he should think twice before accepting the argument that the 6.1 billion people in the rest of the world do not have to pay the US for IP. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)
***

The Ars Technica article was very intriguing and made me think of the landscape of Internet access with the high fixed costs of transitioning to a fiber optic network. I’m sure that laying cables, etc. was extremely costly (which we have reviewed in previous lectures). However it opened the doors to much greater advancements in technology. I believe that if subsidies were somehow provided to entice companies to build fiber optic networks then the internet may experience a harkening much to the likes of cable television. And with greater technological advancement will surely come greater legal points of contention. I wonder if the legal battle for transmitting copyrighted information will become more heated as technology continues to progress. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 11:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

Grimmelman’s article on the madness of the Cablevision case really encapsulated the crux of the copyright debate for me. Grimmelman concludes: “Instead of asking which back-end technologies are legal, it might make more sense to ask what it is legal for users to do with computers on the front end.” An astute point that should be obvious (and I personally loved Grimmelman’s irreverent tone to reinforce this). The protection of copyright is a dense, complicated problem in the digital era, but to make progress, we have to be able to agree on some sensible underlying assumptions. Namely, that “copying” and “performing” is different in the digital world than in the analog world. Consequently 1.) we can't directly apply old copyright regulations to new ones and 2.) we ought to apply copyright regulations as they relate to users’ uses rather than some obscure behind the scenes minutiae.

Reading Grimmelman’s article, I was blown away by the technical intricacies of de-duplicaton, public performance, and what constitutes as a “copy.” Absent from the discussion surrounding Cablevision were issues of user practices, fair use, and rethinking the nature of a digital copy. As Lawrence Lessig points out, the technology with which we access our culture today has changed – copying is ubiquitous in our creative “remix” culture. And so while I think few people fall into the extremes of “abolish copyright altogether” or “preserve everything bout old copyright” it’s important to recognize, as Lessig says of Aaron Swartz’s work, when to recognize “dumb copyright.” I think by focusing too heavily on analog metaphors and technical loop-holes, we do little to combat dumb copyright.

Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject:

Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

Wikipedia's and the U.S. Copyright Office's explanation of copyright made the law seem straightforward and easy to understand. But once the readings and video started tackling the copyright issues in the internet realm, everything became rather confusing. This is partly my fault for not knowing a lot about copyright law, but from what I've read, it seems like the courts (and legislatures?) are also still trying to figure how the copyright system should work in cyberspace.

Is the problem because we're trying to apply a system of laws that was originally developed to regulate mostly ideas fixated on tangible objects (books, cds, records) on a virtual platform? The debate about what kind of "copies" are legal (see e.g. the Ars Technica reading on Video Copyright) result in strange rules/law, as Grimmelmann summarizes: "A million viewers and a million copies—OK. A million viewers but only one copy—not OK."

If the copyright law is interpreted broadly, I think a lot of normal online activity infringes the law. And yet it's so easy to click to a page, save a chunk of text, movie, and/or image one likes, then share it somewhere else, making more and more copies. Are these activities infringing copyright law? It's not fair use, it's more like sharing. In the physical world, I would share a book I like by actually lending it to a friend and not photocopying it because of the hassle; but when applied online, the matter is as simple as a right click of a file, then "copy" then "paste." And the paste can result in tons of copies without much effort.

Perhaps a new system should be created for the internet, instead of just applying the old principles of copyright. Creative Commons is a step in that direction, but the issues dealing with traditional intellectual property (such as music and books published by by brick-and-mortar businesses) going online still aren't solved.

I think Lawrence Lessig made an important point reminding his audience that the purpose of copyright law isn't supposed to make money for the rights holder, although that's a nice reward, and there are business models built around that (e.g. the music and movie industry). Rather, the purpose of copyright is to provide the incentives to create an environment that fosters creativity and discussion. Any thinking on how copyright should apply to the internet should keep these goals in mind.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

I found the video Creative Commons very inspiring. This video really harnessed my view on the globalization of technology. The view that sharing content can advance education, technology, medicine, just to name a few areas is not new. While most countries and companies hold their intellectual property close to their chest and will fight tooth and nail to take anyone down who infringes on it, we should evolve as a culture to allow for a shared space. This shared space could provide the insight to allow for advancement rather than stagnation. One little binary code, or biological sequence can inspire another individual to change the world. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:35, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

The readings this week are well balanced: past, present, and future. The overview about Limitations on Exclusive Rights (17 USC § 107) and Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works (17 USC § 106) sets the stage for copyright regulations, dating back to the U.S. Constitution. The examples in the other articles draw attention to present-day legal debates, such as Internet streaming (i.e., the son of cable). And, the Creative Commons (CC) video/article, is a segue to the future of copyright regulation and knowledge transfer. From my perspective, the future outlook is an interesting scenario to consider.

During the first month of this course, we've learned that the boundaries surrounding online regulation and sovereignty are complex. Online copyright follows suite. Literary, musical, dramatic arts, choreographic works, and motion pictures, among the other forms of communication (outlined in 17 USC § 106) are continuously shared, yet who becomes the ultimate online police? Much like freedom of speech, it seems almost impossible to define the boundaries of copyright infringement in cyberspace. When intellectual capital (IC) is shared without approval, where is the line drawn? From the standpoint of last week’s “third-party provider articles,” the stakeholder web appears even more convoluted. IC passes from hand to hand, server to server, website to website. Who assumes accountability?

CC is interesting because it opens the door for knowledge sharing, and anyone can participate. It promotes “creativity, collaboration, and access.” I personally like the mission stated in the video: ''CC moves away from content control and thinks in terms of communications, bringing communities together through open-ended collaboration.'' This concept is in-line with the “online freedom of speech argument,” promoting creativity as a means to become more united. Creating and sharing within an online global community generates different outcomes versus building legal walls (i.e., copyright restrictions).

What do others think about the CC-form of communication and expression? Can this collaborative concept dominate the web, or will restrictions trump open-ended communication? Are there parallel online communities that mirror the Creative Commons’ concept? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***
I really enjoyed reading material for today’s lecture, however the main question arises as to why can’t we apply the laws of intellectual property in a simple and coherent manner? In my view, the law of copyright seems to be falling apart, while restricting the information that can change the world and [could] alter the research and development of new and improved results of diverse frameworks. What about community? How can we share intellectual information if it’s so drastically protected? The article of Grimmelmann portrays an interesting view of copyright of video industry, which has its own architecture of copyright law (fees for Netflix and hulu as an example), however, how about those individuals/countries that cannot afford the copyright [fees] conditions? While watching the video about Creative Commons on A Shared Culture, I was definitely inspired about the comments that were made, which I completely agree with. I believe that laws do get in the way; furthermore, a shared community must exist (and it does at some extend) in order for diverse societies to be able to adapt by the laws, which must portray a source of freedom within creative and intellectual spectrums.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
***

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2013-03-05T16:45:03Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. Today’s class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The second half of assignment 2 (commenting on prospectuses) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics] (read only Who Can Claim Copyright?, What Works Are Protected?, What is Not Protected by Copyright?, How to Secure a Copyright, and How Long Copyright Protection Endures)

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]

* [http://blip.tv/lessig/it-is-about-time-getting-our-values-around-copyright-2847688 Lawrence Lessig, It is About Time: Getting Our Values around Copyright] (watch first 6 minutes)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-insane/ James Grimmelmann, Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Video Copyright Went Insane]

* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]

* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, ''Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy''] (Introduction only)

* Creative Commons, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko A Shared Culture] (video, watch all) and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 Spectrum of Rights]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/ Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
The gloss we're going in class on copyright terms is a bit simplified. For a more detailed chart discussing copyright duration, check out the chart developed by [http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Cornell's Copyright Information Center].

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

I was somewhat surprised by the tone of Julian Sanchez', Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy. It reads as if it were written by some type of torrent-freak railing against legitimate business, and is about as informative. While his fundamental point that it is hard to quantify the harm copyright piracy does in terms of economic loss and jobs lost is reasonable, he does nothing to argue against the undeniable fact that the United States (and Canada) do lose jobs and money due to the piracy. Sanchez' point "When someone torrents a $12 album that they would have otherwise purchased, the record industry loses $12, to be sure. But that doesn't mean that $12 has magically vanished from the economy. On the contrary: someone has gotten the value of the album and still has $12 to spend somewhere else" is just flat out wrong. It may be valid when an American steals from an American, or a Canadian steals from a Canadian, but it does not apply when a Canadian steals from an American, or more problematically, when China and the rest of the world steal from America. The US trade deficit with China is enormous. This is due in quite a significant part to the fact that we import and pay for enormous amounts of manufactured goods from China, while China imports, but does not pay for enormous amounts of IP from the US and Canada (think fake Apple phones, hacked MS office, every single hollywood movie and song, serious technical data and research). While Sanchez might not want to pay $100 for MS Word or $20 for a movie, he should think twice before accepting the argument that the 6.1 billion people in the rest of the world do not have to pay the US for IP. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

The Ars Technica article was very intriguing and made me think of the landscape of Internet access with the high fixed costs of transitioning to a fiber optic network. I’m sure that laying cables, etc. was extremely costly (which we have reviewed in previous lectures). However it opened the doors to much greater advancements in technology. I believe that if subsidies were somehow provided to entice companies to build fiber optic networks then the internet may experience a harkening much to the likes of cable television. And with greater technological advancement will surely come greater legal points of contention. I wonder if the legal battle for transmitting copyrighted information will become more heated as technology continues to progress. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 11:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

Grimmelman’s article on the madness of the Cablevision case really encapsulated the crux of the copyright debate for me. Grimmelman concludes: “Instead of asking which back-end technologies are legal, it might make more sense to ask what it is legal for users to do with computers on the front end.” An astute point that should be obvious (and I personally loved Grimmelman’s irreverent tone to reinforce this). The protection of copyright is a dense, complicated problem in the digital era, but to make progress, we have to be able to agree on some sensible underlying assumptions. Namely, that “copying” and “performing” is different in the digital world than in the analog world. Consequently 1.) we can't directly apply old copyright regulations to new ones and 2.) we ought to apply copyright regulations as they relate to users’ uses rather than some obscure behind the scenes minutiae.

Reading Grimmelman’s article, I was blown away by the technical intricacies of de-duplicaton, public performance, and what constitutes as a “copy.” Absent from the discussion surrounding Cablevision were issues of user practices, fair use, and rethinking the nature of a digital copy. As Lawrence Lessig points out, the technology with which we access our culture today has changed – copying is ubiquitous in our creative “remix” culture. And so while I think few people fall into the extremes of “abolish copyright altogether” or “preserve everything bout old copyright” it’s important to recognize, as Lessig says of Aaron Swartz’s work, when to recognize “dumb copyright.” I think by focusing too heavily on analog metaphors and technical loop-holes, we do little to combat dumb copyright.

Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject:

Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

Wikipedia's and the U.S. Copyright Office's explanation of copyright made the law seem straightforward and easy to understand. But once the readings and video started tackling the copyright issues in the internet realm, everything became rather confusing. This is partly my fault for not knowing a lot about copyright law, but from what I've read, it seems like the courts (and legislatures?) are also still trying to figure how the copyright system should work in cyberspace.

Is the problem because we're trying to apply a system of laws that was originally developed to regulate mostly ideas fixated on tangible objects (books, cds, records) on a virtual platform? The debate about what kind of "copies" are legal (see e.g. the Ars Technica reading on Video Copyright) result in strange rules/law, as Grimmelmann summarizes: "A million viewers and a million copies—OK. A million viewers but only one copy—not OK."

If the copyright law is interpreted broadly, I think a lot of normal online activity infringes the law. And yet it's so easy to click to a page, save a chunk of text, movie, and/or image one likes, then share it somewhere else, making more and more copies. Are these activities infringing copyright law? It's not fair use, it's more like sharing. In the physical world, I would share a book I like by actually lending it to a friend and not photocopying it because of the hassle; but when applied online, the matter is as simple as a right click of a file, then "copy" then "paste." And the paste can result in tons of copies without much effort.

Perhaps a new system should be created for the internet, instead of just applying the old principles of copyright. Creative Commons is a step in that direction, but the issues dealing with traditional intellectual property (such as music and books published by by brick-and-mortar businesses) going online still aren't solved.

I think Lawrence Lessig made an important point reminding his audience that the purpose of copyright law isn't supposed to make money for the rights holder, although that's a nice reward, and there are business models built around that (e.g. the music and movie industry). Rather, the purpose of copyright is to provide the incentives to create an environment that fosters creativity and discussion. Any thinking on how copyright should apply to the internet should keep these goals in mind.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

I found the video Creative Commons very inspiring. This video really harnessed my view on the globalization of technology. The view that sharing content can advance education, technology, medicine, just to name a few areas is not new. While most countries and companies hold their intellectual property close to their chest and will fight tooth and nail to take anyone down who infringes on it, we should evolve as a culture to allow for a shared space. This shared space could provide the insight to allow for advancement rather than stagnation. One little binary code, or biological sequence can inspire another individual to change the world. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:35, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

The readings this week are well balanced: past, present, and future. The overview about Limitations on Exclusive Rights (17 USC § 107) and Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works (17 USC § 106) sets the stage for copyright regulations, dating back to the U.S. Constitution. The examples in the other articles draw attention to present-day legal debates, such as Internet streaming (i.e., the son of cable). And, the Creative Commons (CC) video/article, is a segue to the future of copyright regulation and knowledge transfer. From my perspective, the future outlook is an interesting scenario to consider.

During the first month of this course, we've learned that the boundaries surrounding online regulation and sovereignty are complex. Online copyright follows suite. Literary, musical, dramatic arts, choreographic works, and motion pictures, among the other forms of communication (outlined in 17 USC § 106) are continuously shared, yet who becomes the ultimate online police? Much like freedom of speech, it seems almost impossible to define the boundaries of copyright infringement in cyberspace. When intellectual capital (IC) is shared without approval, where is the line drawn? From the standpoint of last week’s “third-party provider articles,” the stakeholder web appears even more convoluted. IC passes from hand to hand, server to server, website to website. Who assumes accountability?

CC is interesting because it opens the door for knowledge sharing, and anyone can participate. It promotes “creativity, collaboration, and access.” I personally like the mission stated in the video: ''CC moves away from content control and thinks in terms of communications, bringing communities together through open-ended collaboration.'' This concept is in-line with the “online freedom of speech argument,” promoting creativity as a means to become more united. Creating and sharing within an online global community generates different outcomes versus building legal walls (i.e., copyright restrictions).

What do others think about the CC-form of communication and expression? Can this collaborative concept dominate the web, or will restrictions trump open-ended communication? Are there parallel online communities that mirror the Creative Commons’ concept? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***
I really enjoyed reading material for today’s lecture, however the main question arises as to why can’t we apply the laws of intellectual property in a simple and coherent manner? In my view, the law of copyright seems to be falling apart, while restricting the information that can change the world and [could] alter the research and development of new and improved results of diverse frameworks. What about community? How can we share intellectual information if it’s so drastically protected? The article of Grimmelmann portrays an interesting view of copyright of video industry, which has its own architecture of copyright law (fees for Netflix and hulu as an example), however, how about those individuals/countries that cannot afford the copyright [fees] conditions? While watching the video about Creative Commons on A Shared Culture, I was definitely inspired about the comments that were made, which I completely agree with. I believe that laws do get in the way; furthermore, a shared community must exist (and it does at some extend) in order for diverse societies to be able to adapt by the laws, which must portray a source of freedom within creative and intellectual spectrums.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
***

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2013-03-05T16:44:44Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to recut, reframe, and recycle previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. Today’s class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The second half of assignment 2 (commenting on prospectuses) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics] (read only Who Can Claim Copyright?, What Works Are Protected?, What is Not Protected by Copyright?, How to Secure a Copyright, and How Long Copyright Protection Endures)

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]

* [http://blip.tv/lessig/it-is-about-time-getting-our-values-around-copyright-2847688 Lawrence Lessig, It is About Time: Getting Our Values around Copyright] (watch first 6 minutes)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-insane/ James Grimmelmann, Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Video Copyright Went Insane]

* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]

* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, ''Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy''] (Introduction only)

* Creative Commons, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko A Shared Culture] (video, watch all) and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 Spectrum of Rights]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/ Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
The gloss we're going in class on copyright terms is a bit simplified. For a more detailed chart discussing copyright duration, check out the chart developed by [http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Cornell's Copyright Information Center].

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

I was somewhat surprised by the tone of Julian Sanchez', Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy. It reads as if it were written by some type of torrent-freak railing against legitimate business, and is about as informative. While his fundamental point that it is hard to quantify the harm copyright piracy does in terms of economic loss and jobs lost is reasonable, he does nothing to argue against the undeniable fact that the United States (and Canada) do lose jobs and money due to the piracy. Sanchez' point "When someone torrents a $12 album that they would have otherwise purchased, the record industry loses $12, to be sure. But that doesn't mean that $12 has magically vanished from the economy. On the contrary: someone has gotten the value of the album and still has $12 to spend somewhere else" is just flat out wrong. It may be valid when an American steals from an American, or a Canadian steals from a Canadian, but it does not apply when a Canadian steals from an American, or more problematically, when China and the rest of the world steal from America. The US trade deficit with China is enormous. This is due in quite a significant part to the fact that we import and pay for enormous amounts of manufactured goods from China, while China imports, but does not pay for enormous amounts of IP from the US and Canada (think fake Apple phones, hacked MS office, every single hollywood movie and song, serious technical data and research). While Sanchez might not want to pay $100 for MS Word or $20 for a movie, he should think twice before accepting the argument that the 6.1 billion people in the rest of the world do not have to pay the US for IP. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

The Ars Technica article was very intriguing and made me think of the landscape of Internet access with the high fixed costs of transitioning to a fiber optic network. I’m sure that laying cables, etc. was extremely costly (which we have reviewed in previous lectures). However it opened the doors to much greater advancements in technology. I believe that if subsidies were somehow provided to entice companies to build fiber optic networks then the internet may experience a harkening much to the likes of cable television. And with greater technological advancement will surely come greater legal points of contention. I wonder if the legal battle for transmitting copyrighted information will become more heated as technology continues to progress. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 11:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

Grimmelman’s article on the madness of the Cablevision case really encapsulated the crux of the copyright debate for me. Grimmelman concludes: “Instead of asking which back-end technologies are legal, it might make more sense to ask what it is legal for users to do with computers on the front end.” An astute point that should be obvious (and I personally loved Grimmelman’s irreverent tone to reinforce this). The protection of copyright is a dense, complicated problem in the digital era, but to make progress, we have to be able to agree on some sensible underlying assumptions. Namely, that “copying” and “performing” is different in the digital world than in the analog world. Consequently 1.) we can't directly apply old copyright regulations to new ones and 2.) we ought to apply copyright regulations as they relate to users’ uses rather than some obscure behind the scenes minutiae.

Reading Grimmelman’s article, I was blown away by the technical intricacies of de-duplicaton, public performance, and what constitutes as a “copy.” Absent from the discussion surrounding Cablevision were issues of user practices, fair use, and rethinking the nature of a digital copy. As Lawrence Lessig points out, the technology with which we access our culture today has changed – copying is ubiquitous in our creative “remix” culture. And so while I think few people fall into the extremes of “abolish copyright altogether” or “preserve everything bout old copyright” it’s important to recognize, as Lessig says of Aaron Swartz’s work, when to recognize “dumb copyright.” I think by focusing too heavily on analog metaphors and technical loop-holes, we do little to combat dumb copyright.

Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject:

Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

Wikipedia's and the U.S. Copyright Office's explanation of copyright made the law seem straightforward and easy to understand. But once the readings and video started tackling the copyright issues in the internet realm, everything became rather confusing. This is partly my fault for not knowing a lot about copyright law, but from what I've read, it seems like the courts (and legislatures?) are also still trying to figure how the copyright system should work in cyberspace.

Is the problem because we're trying to apply a system of laws that was originally developed to regulate mostly ideas fixated on tangible objects (books, cds, records) on a virtual platform? The debate about what kind of "copies" are legal (see e.g. the Ars Technica reading on Video Copyright) result in strange rules/law, as Grimmelmann summarizes: "A million viewers and a million copies—OK. A million viewers but only one copy—not OK."

If the copyright law is interpreted broadly, I think a lot of normal online activity infringes the law. And yet it's so easy to click to a page, save a chunk of text, movie, and/or image one likes, then share it somewhere else, making more and more copies. Are these activities infringing copyright law? It's not fair use, it's more like sharing. In the physical world, I would share a book I like by actually lending it to a friend and not photocopying it because of the hassle; but when applied online, the matter is as simple as a right click of a file, then "copy" then "paste." And the paste can result in tons of copies without much effort.

Perhaps a new system should be created for the internet, instead of just applying the old principles of copyright. Creative Commons is a step in that direction, but the issues dealing with traditional intellectual property (such as music and books published by by brick-and-mortar businesses) going online still aren't solved.

I think Lawrence Lessig made an important point reminding his audience that the purpose of copyright law isn't supposed to make money for the rights holder, although that's a nice reward, and there are business models built around that (e.g. the music and movie industry). Rather, the purpose of copyright is to provide the incentives to create an environment that fosters creativity and discussion. Any thinking on how copyright should apply to the internet should keep these goals in mind.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

I found the video Creative Commons very inspiring. This video really harnessed my view on the globalization of technology. The view that sharing content can advance education, technology, medicine, just to name a few areas is not new. While most countries and companies hold their intellectual property close to their chest and will fight tooth and nail to take anyone down who infringes on it, we should evolve as a culture to allow for a shared space. This shared space could provide the insight to allow for advancement rather than stagnation. One little binary code, or biological sequence can inspire another individual to change the world. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:35, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

The readings this week are well balanced: past, present, and future. The overview about Limitations on Exclusive Rights (17 USC § 107) and Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works (17 USC § 106) sets the stage for copyright regulations, dating back to the U.S. Constitution. The examples in the other articles draw attention to present-day legal debates, such as Internet streaming (i.e., the son of cable). And, the Creative Commons (CC) video/article, is a segue to the future of copyright regulation and knowledge transfer. From my perspective, the future outlook is an interesting scenario to consider.

During the first month of this course, we've learned that the boundaries surrounding online regulation and sovereignty are complex. Online copyright follows suite. Literary, musical, dramatic arts, choreographic works, and motion pictures, among the other forms of communication (outlined in 17 USC § 106) are continuously shared, yet who becomes the ultimate online police? Much like freedom of speech, it seems almost impossible to define the boundaries of copyright infringement in cyberspace. When intellectual capital (IC) is shared without approval, where is the line drawn? From the standpoint of last week’s “third-party provider articles,” the stakeholder web appears even more convoluted. IC passes from hand to hand, server to server, website to website. Who assumes accountability?

CC is interesting because it opens the door for knowledge sharing, and anyone can participate. It promotes “creativity, collaboration, and access.” I personally like the mission stated in the video: ''CC moves away from content control and thinks in terms of communications, bringing communities together through open-ended collaboration.'' This concept is in-line with the “online freedom of speech argument,” promoting creativity as a means to become more united. Creating and sharing within an online global community generates different outcomes versus building legal walls (i.e., copyright restrictions).

What do others think about the CC-form of communication and expression? Can this collaborative concept dominate the web, or will restrictions trump open-ended communication? Are there parallel online communities that mirror the Creative Commons’ concept? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***
I really enjoyed reading material for today’s lecture, however the main question arises as to why can’t we apply the laws of intellectual property in a simple and coherent manner? In my view, the law of copyright seems to be falling apart, while restricting the information that can change the world and [could] alter the research and development of new and improved results of diverse frameworks. What about community? How can we share intellectual information if it’s so drastically protected? The article of Grimmelmann portrays an interesting view of copyright of video industry, which has its own architecture of copyright law (fees for Netflix and hulu as an example), however, how about those individuals/countries that cannot afford the copyright [fees] conditions? While watching the video about Creative Commons on A Shared Culture, I was definitely inspired about the comments that were made, which I completely agree with. I believe that laws do get in the way; furthermore, a shared community must exist (and it does at some extend) in order for diverse societies to be able to adapt by the laws, which must portray a source of freedom within creative and intellectual spectrums.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)
**

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-04T23:38:33Z

User777: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

******

Pseudonym: "Asmith"
Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User:
Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****

Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

hI RICH: Is an interesting topic, i think that you can make an introduction, about what is the meaning of "free speech", because, at the end, this is a relative concept, that depends, precisely, of the cultural context.
Natalia. ''''

Pseudonym: AaronEttl
Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Aaron,<br />
I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community.<br />
One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor
'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication”
An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network.
'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645

Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Hunter,
The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Pseudonym: Dear Alice
Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Michael Keane "A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx

[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Michael,
I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****

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

Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization.

[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Rebekahjudson
Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf

[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)

:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*****
Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*****
Matthew D. Haney
"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
**
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)
**
Matthew: Wonderful topic, I think you’ll have a lot of fun with this research topic. Although you have wonderful sources, I was wondering to know how you will gather the data, and do you think that Yelp will be able to provide you with clarification of removed posts? Censorship plays an important role within this topic; will you use any interesting cases to defend your paper? [[User:User777|user777]] 18:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)

**

Milenagrado
"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)

***
Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

Tessa,<br/>
This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. <br />
Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Tessa,
This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
***
Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. I see that you have a perfect strategy for your paper, which I think will definitely help you generate a great paper. How many groups will you audit? How often will you review a group? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

***

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf

Daniel Cameron Morris: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control.
****
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

****

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Popular culture can interestingly be compared to James White’s article on “Imagining the Law” ”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx

Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is facinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguements pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguements for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
***

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

***

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

***

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Zak Paster: How will you estimate "effective fundraising" for Research Question A? Question C seems large enough to be the entire project as "conduct external research about online giving and associated industry trends" is a large undertaking. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)

***

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

***
The Right to be Forgotten
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

***

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

***

Name or pseudonym: Free speech, Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))

:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
*[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Name: Susan Goldstein
Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.

Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Kaley Sweeney
Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****
*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
saridder
Steve Ridder

The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)

****

María Paz Jurado
Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

****

John Floyd
Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Hi John,

Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

Pseudonym: CyberRalph
Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****

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

Aly Barbour
Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.

Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: JW

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

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

****
'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****
Pseudonym: baughller
Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx

I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Laurence Girard

Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.

Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-04T23:30:09Z

User777: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

******

Pseudonym: "Asmith"
Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User:
Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****

Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: AaronEttl
Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Aaron,<br />
I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community.<br />
One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor
'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication”
An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network.
'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645

Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Hunter,
The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Pseudonym: Dear Alice
Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Michael Keane "A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx

[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Michael,
I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****

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

Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization.

[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Rebekahjudson
Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf

[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)

:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*****
Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*****
Matthew D. Haney
"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Milenagrado
"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)

***
Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

Tessa,<br/>
This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. <br />
Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Tessa,
This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
***
Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. I see that you have a perfect strategy for your paper, which I think will definitely help you generate a great paper. How many groups will you audit? How often will you review a group? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

***

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf

Daniel Cameron Morris: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control.
****
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

****

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Popular culture can interestingly be compared to James White’s article on “Imagining the Law” ”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx

Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is facinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguements pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguements for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)
***

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

***

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

***

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Zak Paster: How will you estimate "effective fundraising" for Research Question A? Question C seems large enough to be the entire project as "conduct external research about online giving and associated industry trends" is a large undertaking. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)

***

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

***
The Right to be Forgotten
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

***

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

***

Name or pseudonym: Free speech, Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))

:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
*[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Name: Susan Goldstein
Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.

Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Kaley Sweeney
Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****
*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
saridder
Steve Ridder

The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)

****

María Paz Jurado
Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

****

John Floyd
Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Hi John,

Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

Pseudonym: CyberRalph
Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****

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

Aly Barbour
Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.

Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: JW

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

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

****
'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****
Pseudonym: baughller
Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx

I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Laurence Girard

Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.

Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-04T23:23:56Z

User777: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

******

Pseudonym: "Asmith"
Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User:
Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****

Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: AaronEttl
Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Aaron,<br />
I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community.<br />
One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor
'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication”
An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network.
'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645

Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Hunter,
The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Pseudonym: Dear Alice
Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Michael Keane "A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx

[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Michael,
I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****

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

Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization.

[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Rebekahjudson
Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf

[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)

:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*****
Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*****
Matthew D. Haney
"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Milenagrado
"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)

***
Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

Tessa,<br/>
This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. <br />
Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Tessa,
This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
***
Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. I see that you have a perfect strategy for your paper, which I think will definitely help you generate a great paper. How many groups will you audit? How often will you review a group? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

***

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf

Daniel Cameron Morris: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control.
****
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

****

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Popular culture can interestingly be compared to James White’s article on “Imagining the Law” ”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx

Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is facinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguements pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguements for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

***

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

***

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Zak Paster: How will you estimate "effective fundraising" for Research Question A? Question C seems large enough to be the entire project as "conduct external research about online giving and associated industry trends" is a large undertaking. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)

***

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

***
The Right to be Forgotten
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

***

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

***

Name or pseudonym: Free speech, Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))

:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
*[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Name: Susan Goldstein
Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.

Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Kaley Sweeney
Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****
*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
saridder
Steve Ridder

The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)

****

María Paz Jurado
Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

****

John Floyd
Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Hi John,

Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

Pseudonym: CyberRalph
Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****

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

Aly Barbour
Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.

Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: JW

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

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

****
'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****
Pseudonym: baughller
Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx

I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Laurence Girard

Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.

Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-04T23:21:09Z

User777: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

******

Pseudonym: "Asmith"
Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User:
Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****

Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: AaronEttl
Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Aaron,<br />
I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community.<br />
One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor
'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication”
An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network.
'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645

Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Hunter,
The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Pseudonym: Dear Alice
Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Michael Keane "A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx

[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Michael,
I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****

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

Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization.

[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Rebekahjudson
Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf

[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)

:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*****
Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*****
Matthew D. Haney
"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Milenagrado
"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)

***
Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

Tessa,<br/>
This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. <br />
Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Tessa,
This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)
***
Tessa: I think you’ve picked out a great topic for your research paper. I am an active user of Linkedin, and I do participate in quite a few groups, and you are correct, that posts are being deleted without notice, which sometimes makes it hard to fallow the group/topic itself. How many groups will you audit? Good luck on your paper, and I look forward to read your final work (if class permits).
[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)

***

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf

Daniel Cameron Morris: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control.
****
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

****

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Popular culture can interestingly be compared to James White’s article on “Imagining the Law” ”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx

Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is facinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguements pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguements for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

***

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

***

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Zak Paster: How will you estimate "effective fundraising" for Research Question A? Question C seems large enough to be the entire project as "conduct external research about online giving and associated industry trends" is a large undertaking. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)

***

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

***
The Right to be Forgotten
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

***

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

***

Name or pseudonym: Free speech, Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))

:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
*[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Name: Susan Goldstein
Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.

Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Kaley Sweeney
Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****
*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
saridder
Steve Ridder

The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)

****

María Paz Jurado
Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

****

John Floyd
Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Hi John,

Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

Pseudonym: CyberRalph
Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****

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

Aly Barbour
Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.

Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: JW

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

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

****
'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****
Pseudonym: baughller
Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx

I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Laurence Girard

Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.

Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-03-04T22:42:57Z

User777: /* Comments */

{{AssignmentCal}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments
Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Interstingcomments: I am curious if you would be able to observe blogs or online community discussions on this topic from the respective countries of study. The local citizen perspective might offer additional insight. --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:54, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Interestingcomments: You might be able to find some communities talking about this subject on globalvoicesonline.org. I think it can be a good idea to compare communities from each country to find out if they have the same opinion. [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 16:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

******

Pseudonym: "Asmith"
Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Asmith: Sounds like a perfect community to observe for this project. I would be interested to see if the diaspora community comes up with a governance model that mirrors other social networking models or if they come up with a truly unique model of their own. --[[User:
Alice|Dear Alice]] 13:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Asmith – Your proposal is clear and the questions you've set forth are important. In reference to your final paragraph, it may also be interesting to evaluate pros and cons surrounding centralized content control versus the lack thereof. For example, from one perspective, a collaborative online community is important because everyone is considered equal (there is a flat/circular management structure). From another perspective, however, when a primary leader (site administrative team) who controls online content is absent, decision-making processes change, i.e., when controversies or disputes arise, who addresses them? Comparing Diaspora with other collaborative communities, such as Wikipedia, is an interesting approach to analyze the pros and cons of online community management. As a conclusion, based on your findings, you may be able to set forth some important content management recommendations that highlight best practices for the Diaspora user-base. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:44, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****

Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo
Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)
:Rich: Of the three case studies that you're considering, the FreeSpeechDebate at the University of Oxford seems to be the most appropriate because it specifically addresses the thrust of your research. Examining judicial opinions weighing all arguments and The Open Net Initiative at the Berkman Center both seem to be too ambitious in scope.[[User:JW|JW]] 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: AaronEttl
Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Aaron,<br />
I think focusing on the consequence these search engines have on the users, rather than the websites in the search results, is unique and will be really fascinating to look at. Although you did narrow down the specific community you would look at -- the SEO community -- I think you will need to narrow it down further, perhaps to a specific website or set of websites serving a larger online community.<br />
One thing you didn't mention in your prospectus was how you would go about researching the SEO community. I think finding a specific community would be beneficial here as well -- it would give you a better idea as to what specific research methods you could employ. Once you have a more specific community I think everything else will fall into place.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor
'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication”
An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network.
'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645

Hunter: I like the idea of investigating the government’s role in controlling access. However, I found the explanation of your research paper’s quarry regarding the investigation of the ability to shut the system down in states of emergencies a bit confusing. All in all, I look forward to seeing how you develop your prospectus even further. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:21, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hunter, your idea is magnificent. I enjoy your paradox. The thing I notice best about your proposal is that you are using your own ideas, when you could always plagiarize unintentionally. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Hunter,
The idea of "digging" in to find out the real and factual government approach on this matter is great. I think you have alot of great material to work with and you are moving in the right direction. I would just advise you to order your ideas in a clearer way so that your reader doesn't get lost. Great idea! [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:29, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Pseudonym: Dear Alice
Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I like the commercial aspect of your project. You don't mention this in your prospectus, so I'm wondering how is Starbucks driving traffic to the internal site? How are they driving it to their Facebook page? Are there rewards for the consumer if they post on either one? Do the rewards differ? How? Is there a dedicated group or person watching traffic on the internal page? What about the Facebook page? If yes, are they the same group? Will you be able to say something about the resources Starbucks allocates and if/how that has an impact on the response on either? Will you be monitoring for deleted posts? Finally, you aren't including Twitter in your project. Is there a reason?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 17:48, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Dear Alice: I think this is a great starting point for a research paper, and I love the idea of looking at Starbucks, since it is such a huge corporation. However, I think your hypotheses are too easily proved. I think you could go much further with your topic if you think about questions after answering your initial questions...for instance, say posts/comments are regulated differently. Some questions to consider could be, shy would Starbucks spend more/less time managing comments on one site than another? Is there a pattern to how Starbucks regulates comments/posts on their different social media websites? What are the consequences of managing comments differently between websites? Does the user body have anything to do with how Starbucks regulates comments?…etc.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Michael Keane "A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx

[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Keane, interesting assignment. I think it would be easier if you define the kind of content control you want to study by looking at how it is implemented (by law, for example) instead of looking at the purpose that explains it’s put into effect. I think it might be hard to find out certainly what intention does the subject has to exercise some kind of control, but you could for sure see how these controls are being implemented. --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 10:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Michael,
I believe that your idea for this assignment fulfills the essence of it. I think you should define for this prospectus what type of content control you will focus your analysis on. You might also include what reactions the members have to the various forms of censorship.[[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****

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

Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Natalia, Your topic is very interesting, like mine (please comment!) quite broad and could as a suggestion focus completely on one case study that you think most illustrates and answers your hypothesis. I saw that you gave three, just curious as to is there one that is the overarching example for national and internatinal jurisprudence, or does this fall more into the realm of international governing bodies... or decided by national standards? Ultimately are you asking, is freedom of speech or protection of ideas more important on the internet? I like how you tie in that curbing freedom of expression starts to curb human rights, but that some regulation is necessary in civilization. A suggestion is to offer a framework that can be used interactively, involving a way for future bodies looking at legislation on intellectual property and freedom of speech and benchmarks for them to judge whether a law or regulation is infringes on human rights, or is necessary for to preserve civilization.

[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 20:33, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Rebekahjudson
Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?"
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf

[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)

:Rebekahjudson: Fascinating, I had not heard of this. Do users of Weird Twitter self-identify using that label? How do participants signal they are contributing to Weird Twitter rather than just making a joke or nonsensical post on Twitter? To the untrained eye, it doesn't seem like there's much community going on here - but maybe that's the point. I very curious to know how, without a centralized "Weird Twitter" aggregate or some other means to look for Weird Twitter posts (save the map you mentioned), a community of "Weird Twitters" can exist and interact with one another. Look forward to hearing more about this. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:52, 27 February 2013 (EST)

*****
Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder
Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx
:Joshywonder: It might be difficult to study the now archived site as many of the posts/pages are not good links. In your research question you proposed to measure the anonymous users' "reactions when this privacy was stripped away" - will this be entirely interpreted/extrapolated from posts made on the site? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 15:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Joshywonder: I think you have a fabulous idea and have sources that have interested you on this topic. I wonder if you are interested in discussing the difference between Canadian English versus either the United States English or "Official English" as it may be. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:13, 3 March 2013 (EST)
*****
Matthew D. Haney
"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx
:Matthew: You and RobMcLain have proposed the same research questions about Yelp. Maybe you can collaborate?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Matthew, your writing is very scientific; and I applaud you for this. The reader can be left skeptical and that is a matter of definition. Keep up the good work. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 19:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Milenagrado
"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Milena: I think the idea of contacting the users through Twitter, Facebook, and Duolingo’s blog is a good resource to provide some context as to the structure of the site. I also feel that it would be helpful if you could find out how the policies have changed in the past as a result of previous laws. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:36, 2 March 2013 (EST)

***
Dear Milena Grado, I found your paper proposal quite interesting. I haven’t heard about Duolingo, however I have few questions: What about the translation [if] being out of context? What about sentence structure? Culture/ How precise is the translation? If so, what kind of copy rights will this serve gather, in order to protect the translation services? I noted that you will be gathering information through “Twitter, Facebook and Duolingo's blog- very interesting! Do you have specific way of analyzing this data? Use/volume based? Good luck with the paper, I think it’s quite an interesting topic to write a paper on.
[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****
* Pseudonym: Tessa May
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

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

Tessa,<br/>
This looks really, really fascinating! I'm curious - are you considering comparing multiple groups in differing categories? I ask because it may be interesting to see if two groups in similar categories have similar patterns in deleting posts. <br />
Another thing that came to mind: it may be interesting to look at the profiles of the group members to see if there is any pattern between those whose posts are deleted, those who tend to align with group moderators, etc….since LinkedIn profiles generally provide members' current, and often prior, employment and education, you may be able to identify a pattern based on members' socioeconomic status.<br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Tessa,
This looks very interesting and you seem to have your ideas extremely clear. I love the idea of having a survey sent to group owners at the end of your investigation period. I would also suggest, if I may, to contact Linkedin directly and see if they have a comment in regard. [[User:GregB23|GregB23]] 15:22, 4 March 2013 (EST)

*****

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf

Daniel Cameron Morris: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control.
****
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Greetings Daniel: Moderation or Censorship in Linkden Groups really caught my, in regards to the fact that this is a very provocative title. In your prospectus it is interesting to note how you plan on gathering data with regards to specific groups within the site. Being that LinkedIn has captured the social media market for the professional, how will you be able to identify would would need to be cencsorn in a group that is by membership only? Secondly I am very much looking forward to see how Moderation is pulled in to groups. I like the idea of individuals within groups being limited in comments and mailing so that a, "only bully" in a specific network will not hog all of the conversation and in turn add to a more healthy convention of conversation- Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:57, 4 March 2013 (EST)

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

****

Name or pseudonym: Daniel Cameron Morris
Prospectus title: “Popular culture can interestingly be compared to James White’s article on “Imagining the Law” ”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx

Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is facinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguements pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguements for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)

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

***

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

***

* Zak Paster
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Zak Paster: How will you estimate "effective fundraising" for Research Question A? Question C seems large enough to be the entire project as "conduct external research about online giving and associated industry trends" is a large undertaking. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:54, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:Zak Your NGO sounds great. Good luck with it. My question, which I don't know if you'll be able to tackle in this project relates to control. How much tension is there between having an outside entity give you a "pre-formed" website, social media strategy, etc. that may be quite good, and the fund-raising organization's ability to create their own content. Also, just as you want to be sure that the fundraising websites ensure funds go to the advertised cause, donors want to know how their money is being spent. Can organizations have links to places like charitywatch.org or charitynavigator.org?
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Zak: Great Topic. The notion that online fundraising has been getting in recent months is overwhelming. The effective fundraising idea comes with the clear revelation that the internet is very powerful tool. With tools like Kick starter, and rocket hub are able to cast a wider net that will allow more individuals to participate in supporting a cause. However, with regards to control one must ask themselves with a wider net and more individuals having the ability to contribute, how will one be able to control how that money is being accounted for and that it is coming from individuals that are proper for that organization. This is a new eara of Fundraising, both in the public and private sector. On must not loose focus on how effective is new era will be providing an easier access to funds. I am very much looking forward to your final project. Best of Luck and great Topic choice! I am very encouraged that someone is shedding light on potential positive effect this can have for the NGO world. Hunter [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 16:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)

***

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

***
The Right to be Forgotten
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Caroline: You may want to discuss the statue of repose and the statute of limitations in your paper, if you feel that these statutes are relevant.[[User:JW|JW]] 23:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Caroline: Fascinating issue, but you may need to pick a community to observe in order to test the framework. I'm thinking of an app like SnapChat, for example. SnapChat lets users send photos and videos to one another and then deletes that content after a certain time limit. Here, the ability to be forgotten is built into the technology of the platform. How does the community use SnapChat? Is it for "sexting" as many people fear, or are there other practices involved? This might help you explore the role of architecture in the right to be forgotten, not just law. What if Facebook and Google gave you the option to publish something temporarily? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

***

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

***

Name or pseudonym: Free speech, Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))

:Free_speech: It is a very interesting point of view. It is important to see how people can face constraints all over the Internet.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:00, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Hi, this could be an interesting topic. I assume you have some connection to the forum beforehand, because it seems like somewhat of a random choice of community. I like how you will analyze both site specific rules of participation and countrywide laws that are applicable. As a Canadian, if I were to join the forum and participate I would be bound by the laws of Canada and the rules of forum. In contrast, and American would be bound by the laws of the US and forum as well. So perhaps the site acheives greater uniformity in participation through their own regulations than the laws of the countries. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:59, 3 March 2013 (EST)

***

*Phillip Dade
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc
*[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Phil: I wonder how you will [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Final_Project#Research_questions "avoid direct engagement with members of the community"] when you've stated that you will interact with and interview DPLA players and opponents. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, such as the teaching staff approving your methodology?[[User:JW|JW]] 23:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
* @JW - that is a good question, my thought is that I will be interviewing people who are "Pro DPLA" or "Against DPLA" so there is not much I could do to "influence their behavior to inherently change what I am trying to observe." - but I have not discussed with teaching staff, so I could be a little off. [[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 23:17, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Hey Phillip, I am very excited to see the direction that you take regarding the DLPA, specifically in regards to the potential subtractiveness of the organization. It is always interesting
to see the how the members of the community will add to the over all effectiveness of engagement with regards to organization. Because DLPA is stated that, “The hope is that broad access to scientific results will encourage faster progress on research and will let anyone apply the knowledge for technological advances. The ability to shed light on the effectiveness will be exciting to see. "-HunterGaylor" [[User:HunterGaylor|HunterGaylor]] 15:50, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Name: Susan Goldstein
Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Susan: I'm curious why you chose those three particular courses to observe. Would it be possible to observe the same (or very similar) course(s) across two to three platforms? (e.g., edX, Coursera, and Udacity)[[User:JW|JW]] 22:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
JW: I edited out why I chose these courses from the prospectus to get it down to 397 words :) I wanted to stick with Coursera and edX because they are the most well known and I'm particularly interested in Harvard's (edX) participation. My decision was more practical than scientific. I chose courses that were beginning at the end of Feb to mid-March in subjects I thought I'd understand enough to be able to follow conversations about the course. I like your idea of studying similar courses across the different platforms, but am limited by our time frame for this assignment.

Susan: I have never heard of a MOOC. I wondered if an "expert" or credentialed person in the field of study would be allowed to register for the class. If so, how would they be treated? --[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 14:42, 1 March 2013 (EST)
Dear Alice: Anyone can register for a MOOC. An expert in the field of study could register, but would only do so if they wanted to see how someone else was teaching the subject or if they wanted to learn about an aspect of the subject they wanted to learn more about. Since a MOOC is not the same as taking a course for credit to meet the academic requirements of a school, an expert couldn't "cheat" by taking a MOOC to get an easy A. One of the reasons people enroll in MOOCS is to prepare themselves to take a course for credit.
Susan
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Kaley Sweeney
Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx
:Kaley: The part of your prospectus that most caught my attention is the very end: "the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country." I would read a 10-page paper entirely focusing on mobile Internet access in North Korea![[User:JW|JW]] 21:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Kaley: I like your topic because it sheds light on democratic freedoms. Will the expansion of Internet usage in North Korea bring new forms of democracy to a select group of citizens? Will outside influences, that emerge via the Internet, begin to alter government relations? At the end of your prospectus, you mention that you...''”wish to examine the forces that have perpetuated the insulation of the country from the technological revolution and the changes that are beginning to unfold with the rise in mobile internet access in the country.”'' To narrow your focus, you may want to consider highlighting a few primary forces, i.e., norms, market, etc., with descriptions surrounding each force. To answer the latter part (changes that are beginning to unfold in North Korea), what types of changes are you referring to? Do you plan to analyze technological changes, societal changes, or both? To this end, defining a few categories may bring additional structure/clarity to your analysis. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:37, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****
*Raven
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Raven: Cool topic. When you talk about the "quality of comments" it will be important to address the question, "according to whom?" Is it according to the managers of the site, the community of the site, or to society at large? You might also explore how comments are moderated. It seems like the NY Times screens submissions from commenters whereas The Economist and Boing Boing are more lenient. Is that true? It looks like you can flag or report inappropriate comments on Economist and Boing Boing - does user-generated moderation have an effect on the quality of the comments? I'm also interested to know whether you get higher quality comments with pseudonyms (people are perhaps more willing to be open and express one's view anonymously) or with real names (people are perhaps more willing to be articulate and tolerant). How much identity should be revealed to facilitate the most productive comments? Lastly, with regard to "comment quality categories," here are some other categories you might consider in addition to the ones you mention: Openness (willingness to share private information), Conversation potential (the extent there is discussion among commenters), Healthy debate (whether opposing viewpoints are respected), Spam ( whether comments are just a plug for blog or site), Barrier to entry to comment (easy to do or hard?), and flexibility of comment system (ability to see recommended comments or unfiltered). You may want to narrow these down for the scope of the paper but just something to think about. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 14:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Raven, It will be interesting to see which site (anonymous vs. registered users) create more tolls, flame wars, and other aspects to the online world that does not seem to exist in the offline space. The reverse is to see if the sites that require registration will create more fruitful conversations or of they’re equal in quality/quantity to the ones that allow anonymous commenters.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:00, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)
saridder
Steve Ridder

The Digital Marketplace

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

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:Saridder: Your proposal made me think of another topic I was considering for this project. This may be a bit of a tangent from what you're looking to do, but when you talk about the shift towards a knowledge economy, peer production, and the future of work, I immediately thought about Yammer, often called "Facebook for companies." Yammer is a social network for employees at a company to use. Last year it got bought by Microsoft for $1+ billion. Users can only connect with other Yammer users at that company. But they can post status updates, photos, documents and it has pretty much all the same features as Facebook. Yammer is touted as a way to "flatten hierarchy" and empower employees by giving everyone a voice. It provides a collaboration tool for people from all over the world. But I wonder, how does this affect the balance of power in companies? Yes, users can sign up for the service for free without their company's permission. But the company can also pay for a premium Yammer account, which gives them greater control over their Yammer community. What elements of control are at work here (i.e. does the architecture of the site encourage some acceptable work practices, but not others) ? How much control do administrators of a Yammer network have over the contents of the network? Does this shift the balance of power in the workplace because employees can interact in a peer network, rather than through a top down hierarchy? Just an idea as you narrow down your topic. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:01, 27 February 2013 (EST)

****

María Paz Jurado
Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:María: I suggest focusing your analysis on only one part of Taringa: posts, communities, music, or games. Also, it might be interesting to compare and contrast that part of Taringa to another country's equivalent, e.g. Reddit, Craigslist, [http://store.steampowered.com/about/ Steam], etc.[[User:JW|JW]] 21:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Maria: I agree with JW that trying to follow Taringa! Musica and Taringa! Juegos in addition to the main site would be too large a scope for such a small study. [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:48, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Maria: I think using the four “areas to analyze the Internet” (market, architecture, norms, and laws) is an excellent idea and provides structure to your final paper. To make your focus more narrow, you may want to select an example under each domain, supported by an explanation. When analyzing Taringa!’s architecture, you could highlight a few pros and cons surrounding user interactions; when examining the norms within each community, you could outline examples and draw comparisons; when analyzing the market, you could primarily focus on the exchange of music, with specific examples. Overall, I think your explanation is clear and the approach you've outlined will allow you to collect useful data to answer your primary questions.[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

****

John Floyd
Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

Hi John, it will be interesting to see if the behaviors found in these online communities will differ from the politics, alliances, and cabals of the real world. I'm most interested to see if the internet is a better coordination and orchestration mechanism for organizing, and can people online respond quicker, more effectively, and efficiently than offline groups to adapt to the changing political landscapes this game provides.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Hi John,

Great choice of subject, i find it fascinating how these communities of random people from around the globe come together and work together to a certain goal as a community. [[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 17:27, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****

Pseudonym: CyberRalph
Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Hi Ralph, I think that sounds like an interesting project. I know it may be difficult, but I'd also be interested in discovering how those ananymous twitter accounts interact with real life. Are multpiple people using the same account? Are those people actually the ones doing any hacking? Almost certainly those accounts would be monitored by the authorities if they were claiming responsibility and the users identities would be discoverable.[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 09:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Hi CyberRalph: This is an interesting topic. As I read your prospectus, the notion of responsibility and liability came to mind. If this group advertises cyber-attacks, can they inevitably be held accountable? For example, could law enforcement officials follow the leads to IP addresses, and ultimately discover the group(s) behind such attacks? It may be interesting to compare the concepts of online crime with other forms of illicit activities (is online crime more isolated and easier to commit without paying the consequences?). As an intro or conclusion, you may also want to consider highlighting current trends with cyber-attacks and security measures that governments/large companies take. Furthermore, to strengthen your analysis, it would be interesting if you state your personal hypothesis upfront, followed by your question surrounding motivation for these types of attacks. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:34, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****

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

Aly Barbour
Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Aly Barbour: In order to narrow your field research, it will be interesting if you focus on one or two specific communities. It will be better wether they have an intense activity.

Hi Aly, it was shocking to read about these communities, very interesting subject to investigate. I think it’s a good idea to focus in comparing activities in pro anorexia communities and recovery support groups in reddit.com, leaving aside the other platforms to narrow your scope. I think you should also define what will you observe from these communities in order to reach a conclusion for your investigation: do you want to know how control is being implemented? Or maybe focus in one particular constraint and see how it plays a role in regulating the community?--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 11:40, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: JW

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

Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:JW: One of the most interesting constrains here relates to social norms - doxxing is used as a way to regulate and control speech. If you post truly terrible things, the article on the Violentacrez seems to suggest, you ought to be outed to the public. On the one hand, this policy may reduce offensive material - people may be scared to post things like child pornography for fear of being publicly shamed. But "justifiable doxxing" also leads to a kind of vigilantism which has all kinds of moral implications. Who decides who deserves to be outed? It would be interesting to observe doxxing behavior on Preddit and Reddit to see if there is any recognition of where moral boundaries are drawn, if any. Is there any discussion of when doxxing is justifiable (i.e. journalism) and when it is not (i.e. trolling) ? Reddit's stance was clearly: doxxing is bad, period. But do community members feel differently? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 12:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz
Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)

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

****
'''Becca Luberoff'''<br />
'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br />
'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I've noticed that Google caches content from purportedly private forums. If content from your three closed communities is publicly searchable, how does that affect privacy issues?[[User:JW|JW]] 22:42, 26 February 2013 (EST)
:Becca: I followed the link to the "Living with Bipolar Disorder" category on bphope.com and it appeared that the most recent post was 3 months ago with many being from years ago. Will not being able to observe activity (particularly censoring) in real-time have an impact on the research? [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:42, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Becca, Interesting topic and it will be interesting to see how the online components and ‘permanent record’ of comments (architecture) might prohibit and skew the conversation vs. offline, real-world conversations. Will questions asked be inhibited by the semi-public aspect of online forums, preventing people from receiving better care than the privacy the offline world affords? Or will the open aspect of the community allow the best comments to bubble up and be connected to experts who would otherwise not have seen the question if it was asked in the offline world.

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)

****
Pseudonym: baughller
Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search
Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx

I really like the comparison you drew between online libraries and physical libraries such as the library of congress. I think this can serve as a good comparison point for most of your research and provide valuable information. The idea of DuckDuckGo and being given similar information could be a big theme/discourse for your project as well. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:39, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Baughller: This is an interesting topic. Given your research focus area, it may be interesting to forecast the future in relation to identity-type searches (from your perspective). For example, if search results continue to show information based on people’s background / historical searches, what will the long-term outcomes be? Is this a positive search trend or a negative trend, and why? I think it may also be interesting to look at this scenario from a marketing viewpoint. Today, advertisements frequently appear as we surf the web, based on our preferences; this wasn't the case years ago. To that end, how is this new trend changing certain products and/or services? Are some industries profiting more than others, or can all types of marketing reap the benefits? Overall, your topic is very relevant in the current Internet environment, and this search-reality may only be in its infancy. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 17:27, 2 March 2013 (EST)

*****
Laurence Girard

Laurence Girard Prospectus

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

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

I am particularly interested in seeing how online health content relates to online health products. For example, perhaps someone reads an article on WebMD about how Vitamin D affects their health and then as a result they buy it on Amazon.com. What types of supplements are people buying and what affect is this having on their health?I am also interested in websites such as Teladoc.com where users can consult with physicians. In other words, I am interested in studying how people access health information, products, and consultations online. I have read one statistic that says 80% of people in our country search for online health information. For this reason, I think this will be a particularly interesting project to complete and is relevant to the healthcare debate in our country. We need to focus more on prevention and less on treatment and the Internet can certainly be one modality for doing this. I am interested to hear about what my fellow classmates have to say about my chosen assignment.

Laurence: This sounds like a very interesting topic, but would be a huge project to undertake. Can you find one community where people are talking about health issues? I imagine every major disease or condition has some kind of community such as the American Cancer Societies’ Online Communities and Support [[http://www.cancer.org/treatment/supportprogramsservices/onlinecommunities/index]] and choose one or two subgroups to study. Then I think you would be able to look at issues similar to those that Becca will be looking at for her project about Issues of Privacy in Online Mental Health Communities. [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 14:48, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-02-26T16:36:08Z

User777: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-02-26T16:35:16Z

User777: /* Comments */

Regulating Speech Online

2013-02-26T16:12:33Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 26'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act Wikipedia, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Read all of Section I, Parts C&D of Section II, and Conclusion)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey & Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks" (Ars Technica)]

* '''Case Study: The SPEECH Act'''

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy Wikipedia, ''Funding Evil''] (focus on the “Libel Controversy” section)

:* [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2765/text 111th U.S. Congress, H.R. 2765, “Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act” (“SPEECH Act”)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=reno+v+aclu&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22 ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union'', 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]

</onlyinclude>

==Class Discussion==

TAG: Student ID#10789842

The discussion on Why, How, and Who was insightful. It made me to examine deeper into the concept of online behavioral intent on both a micro and macro level. This specific space (Online) when examined, allows you to weigh both sides of the coin. In one argument censorship or content, which controls this behavior shapes our participation in the internet. On the other side of the coin freedom of speech. Politically more and more countries have taken the position to restrict and control the internet through designed "Nation Boundaries" as mentioned in class.

In the readings concerning the laws of defamation and the restriction of content on the internet, it appears to be flawed. Depending on your country of jurisdiction the interpretation of the laws of defamation or control are interpreted differently. In a global information world which we are all a part of, restrictions are becoming tighter and tighter. An example is France restricted Yahoo to having Nazi memorabilia online. Another way to review this precedent set by the French government, is what if a corporation made tremendous acquisitions? If fundamental islamic fanatic group was to acquire Google, Bing, or both, it could become a paradigm shift in controlling the internet from an acquisition stand point. The article "Funding Evil" extends this point by exam terrorist groups that may try to use these resources to distribute their messages of hate.

The readings and the discussion in the class this week was very interesting and I appreciate it.

Have a nice week. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:06, 22 February 2013 (EST)

*****

Reading the Wikipedia article on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prompted me to think about cyber-security and where liability should fall if private information was hacked and released and later deemed as defamatory. Earlier in the course I posted a Gizmodo article on Apple’s iMessage server being hacked and I am beginning to wonder if, as online hubs of information grow to become more institutional, individuals who are targets of cyber attacks will start blaming the companies that have their private information stored on their servers. I foresee that as the internet and cloud take on greater roles in the institutionalization of business and everyday life, that issues like these will start arising. As to the Ars Technica interview, I think that scaling back protection for service providers in order to protect children presents a weak claim. I think doing so would severely alter the costs of operating a site like Myspace or Facebook. Also, it is my personal belief that a parent should be responsible for teaching their children how to correctly use the web and exercise safe practices online. I feel that extending liability and limiting free speech poses a great danger at a minor benefit of altering section 230 for a very specific purpose. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 15:37, 23 February 2013 (EST)

*****

I was very interested to read about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I very much support the idea that the internet service provider should not be held liable for individual's misuse of their publishing service, where the company itself does not exersize creative control over the content (i.e. deleting a post is not a basis for liability). Although I am not an expert, this regime would seem to be different from Canada where we have witnessed very prominent internet communities being brought to their knees by posts made by one or two offenders. My proposed research article, on lawbuzz.ca, will be very much concerned with ideas contained in the s. 230 of the CDA and I looking forward to comparing your legal regime with Canada's.
[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 21:35, 25 February 2013 (EST)

*****

In was quite an interesting read about Section 230 for this class, however in my view, suing diverse websites for such defamatory content is virtually impossible. Since the information is distributed, diverse websites seem to be immune from liability and responsibility to screen or remove the offending content. Who is responsible then? While a clear understanding of Section 230 is present, its critics are more valuable and portray a completely new approach when dealing with Internet content facilitators. In my view, interpretation of Section 230, can grant an immense immunity to companies or website that provide service or content (inappropriate) to realm the defamation factor altogether. What about speech? In my view, defamation is not only the single area of law, but it could be found as a refuge under Section 230 immunity. A section 230 has been interpreted so broadly in my view, that it has protected diverse types of speech, which was intended to prevent from precise inappropriate behavior. [[User:User777|user777]] 11:12, 26 February 2013 (EST)

**

Regulating Speech Online

2013-02-26T16:12:01Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 26'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can, in the words of the Supreme Court, “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” (Reno v. ACLU). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a global audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act Wikipedia, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Read all of Section I, Parts C&D of Section II, and Conclusion)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey & Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks" (Ars Technica)]

* '''Case Study: The SPEECH Act'''

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy Wikipedia, ''Funding Evil''] (focus on the “Libel Controversy” section)

:* [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2765/text 111th U.S. Congress, H.R. 2765, “Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act” (“SPEECH Act”)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=reno+v+aclu&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22 ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union'', 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]

</onlyinclude>

==Class Discussion==

TAG: Student ID#10789842

The discussion on Why, How, and Who was insightful. It made me to examine deeper into the concept of online behavioral intent on both a micro and macro level. This specific space (Online) when examined, allows you to weigh both sides of the coin. In one argument censorship or content, which controls this behavior shapes our participation in the internet. On the other side of the coin freedom of speech. Politically more and more countries have taken the position to restrict and control the internet through designed "Nation Boundaries" as mentioned in class.

In the readings concerning the laws of defamation and the restriction of content on the internet, it appears to be flawed. Depending on your country of jurisdiction the interpretation of the laws of defamation or control are interpreted differently. In a global information world which we are all a part of, restrictions are becoming tighter and tighter. An example is France restricted Yahoo to having Nazi memorabilia online. Another way to review this precedent set by the French government, is what if a corporation made tremendous acquisitions? If fundamental islamic fanatic group was to acquire Google, Bing, or both, it could become a paradigm shift in controlling the internet from an acquisition stand point. The article "Funding Evil" extends this point by exam terrorist groups that may try to use these resources to distribute their messages of hate.

The readings and the discussion in the class this week was very interesting and I appreciate it.

Have a nice week. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:06, 22 February 2013 (EST)

*****

Reading the Wikipedia article on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prompted me to think about cyber-security and where liability should fall if private information was hacked and released and later deemed as defamatory. Earlier in the course I posted a Gizmodo article on Apple’s iMessage server being hacked and I am beginning to wonder if, as online hubs of information grow to become more institutional, individuals who are targets of cyber attacks will start blaming the companies that have their private information stored on their servers. I foresee that as the internet and cloud take on greater roles in the institutionalization of business and everyday life, that issues like these will start arising. As to the Ars Technica interview, I think that scaling back protection for service providers in order to protect children presents a weak claim. I think doing so would severely alter the costs of operating a site like Myspace or Facebook. Also, it is my personal belief that a parent should be responsible for teaching their children how to correctly use the web and exercise safe practices online. I feel that extending liability and limiting free speech poses a great danger at a minor benefit of altering section 230 for a very specific purpose. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 15:37, 23 February 2013 (EST)

*****

I was very interested to read about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I very much support the idea that the internet service provider should not be held liable for individual's misuse of their publishing service, where the company itself does not exersize creative control over the content (i.e. deleting a post is not a basis for liability). Although I am not an expert, this regime would seem to be different from Canada where we have witnessed very prominent internet communities being brought to their knees by posts made by one or two offenders. My proposed research article, on lawbuzz.ca, will be very much concerned with ideas contained in the s. 230 of the CDA and I looking forward to comparing your legal regime with Canada's.
[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 21:35, 25 February 2013 (EST)

*****In was quite an interesting read about Section 230 for this class, however in my view, suing diverse websites for such defamatory content is virtually impossible. Since the information is distributed, diverse websites seem to be immune from liability and responsibility to screen or remove the offending content. Who is responsible then? While a clear understanding of Section 230 is present, its critics are more valuable and portray a completely new approach when dealing with Internet content facilitators. In my view, interpretation of Section 230, can grant an immense immunity to companies or website that provide service or content (inappropriate) to realm the defamation factor altogether. What about speech? In my view, defamation is not only the single area of law, but it could be found as a refuge under Section 230 immunity. A section 230 has been interpreted so broadly in my view, that it has protected diverse types of speech, which was intended to prevent from precise inappropriate behavior. [[User:User777|user777]] 11:12, 26 February 2013 (EST)

*****

Whose Values

2013-02-19T17:18:45Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 19'''

The Internet is often thought of as one place, as in Barlow’s framing of “our world” in the [http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]. But we have already seen that this framing does not play out quite so cleanly. And nor should it, necessarily, because the Internet’s global clientele represent a wide mix of values, both in abstract principles and practical solutions for when those principles collide. This class looks at that issue through the lens of a few specific examples, and starts us toward a larger question: Can we fit all of our different values onto the same Internet?

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://www.economist.com/node/16941635 The Economist, The Future of the Internet: A Virtual Counter-Revolution]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Evolving_Landscape_of_Internet_Control_3.pdf Hal Roberts et al., The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control]

* Biz Stone and Alex Macgillivary, [http://blog.twitter.com/2011/01/tweets-must-flow.html The Tweets Must Flow] and [http://blog.twitter.com/2012/01/tweets-still-must-flow.html The Tweets Still Must Flow]

* [http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/free-expression-and-controversial.html Rachel Whetstone, Free Expression and Controversial Content on the Web]

* [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71625.html Eliza Krigman, Next Battle over Net Ramps Up Worldwide (Politico)]

* '''Case Study: The Innocence of Muslims'''

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocence_of_Muslims Wikipedia, ''The Innocence of Muslims'']

:* [http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/14/opinion/york-libya-youtube/index.html Jillian York, Should Google Censor an Anti-Islam Video?]

:* [http://www.herdict.org/blog/2012/10/15/little-i-internet-what-we-learn-from-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/ Ryan Budish, Little “i” Internet: The “Innocence of Muslims” Video’s Impact on Free Speech]

:* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech Andy Sellars, The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/adapting-us-policy-in-a-changing-international-system/245307/ Anne-Marie Slaughter, Adapting U.S. Policy in a Changing International System]

* [http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accessdenied-chapter-5.pdf Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet (from ''Access Denied'')]

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/explainer-how-can-the-us-seize-a-hong-kong-site-like-megaupload/ Nate Anderson, Explainer: How Can the US Seize a “Hong Kong site” like Megaupload?]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

I found Andy Sellars, 'The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech', article to contain an interesting analysis on the role that the US legal regime governing free speech should play in censorship of the internet. While I agreed with a number of his concerns, I disagree with his proposition that it is 'very' hard to change the constitutional law in the US governing free speech (in particular hate speech). While he, and many other Americans, take the position that the US constitution protects hate speech and that it would be 'very, very hard' to change the law, I do not agree with this. I concede that the wording of the first amendment would appear to place strict limits on the governments interference with speech in general, however, this has not stopped the government from restricting numerous forms of speech such as commercial expression, libel, pornography, child pornography, fraud, intellectual property theft, national security, and incitement to violence. If SCOTUS was inclined to change the laws on hate speech they would be able to do so without resort to formal constitutional amendment.

I also appreciate his point that we now have behemoth corporations making the decisions about whether to censor a citizens opinions. Youtube can remove videos at will and Google can rank pages it disagrees with down into the netherworlds of irrelevance on its search results. Google has done this in the past, leaving up derogatory pages about Rick Santorum, while downgraded pages it disagrees with for whatever reason. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 15:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
**

:Thanks for the comment, Josh. (And yes, Andy Sellars from here is me, just as the article by Ryan Budish is the same Ryan.) I would argue that it is still difficult to change the US Constitution, even if we have majority support for a particular position (e.g. hate speech, where I think there is a growing consensus though certainly not unanimous support). Amending the constitution requires both massive turnout and very-high-percentage (66-75%) support. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution this article] for more. Where the Supreme Court has allowed exceptions has been places where the First Amendment has always been considered to be inapplicable - obscenity, defamation, "fighting words," and a few other places - and these are clearly defined with specific definitions that have evolved form the doctrine. In the words of the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-769.ZO.html Supreme Court], "[o]ur Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it," and doesn't add categories to the list as a general rule. While they could change their mind, they have entrenched in this position for all of their history, and would face all sorts of collateral challenges should they start to arbitrarily decide what is an is not constitutional.

:I am also not sure that we have seen a proven example where Google had down-ranked a page to serve its own interest, but that's beside the point of my article. My concern is that they could, and there's not much we could do about it. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 18:34, 12 February 2013 (EST)

****

Student Initials: TAG
Student ID# 10789842

Mr. Robert Faris guest lecture was very interesting and inspired me to examine the intended democratic forum of the Internet. As mobility and being connected to the Internet becomes more affordable, accessible digital participation and digital representation has come to the forefront of the global debate. The article in The Economist the article on the future of the Internet, they reference Mr. Barlow when stating the declaration, “You have no sovereignty where we gather.”
This topic should be viewed as a sub area of what freedoms the United States was built on. Challenging or infringing upon these freedoms should and never should be acceptable within the US. In a different view I do not feel that we (The United States) should impose other countries to allow the same freedoms to their citizens when using the Internet. It is not our job to be the freedom of Internet police around the world. The article “The Tweets Must Flow” challenges my view that states the

Mr. Ferris gave a detailed explanation of the evolution of the communication industry and the effects of regulations and monopolies have had on the industry, which was quite comprehensive and I enjoyed it thoroughly. In the article “The Evolving Landscape of Internet Control” it was clear that other countries who establish restrictive parameters for their citizens to access the internet spend more time on ethnocentric innovation, instead of blocking the outside sites. I find this remarkable, that they believe more in their own citizens to produce a better product that they do not spend a proportionate amount of time in blocking the external access sites. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:15, 14 February 2013 (EST)

****

I thought this weeks twitter postings on the new filter by country feature added to the original belief on non filtering was very interesting. While the posting made it clear that this feature, if employed, would be merely reactive, I am still unconvinced as to whether or not it serves to protect freedom of speech or is leading more to a geographically dominated net space. While it is one step above globally censoring content, I still don't believe that it aims to bolster true net neutrality. But when dealing with global internet usage and consumption, I guess this reactive filtering option would be the lesser of two evils. I thought the Google blog posting did a good job on expounding upon the issue of regional filtering vs. free expression. It seems to be an extremely non divisive issue and one that is ever-changing. I guess in a globalized world, it's impossible to satisfy every critic and country. While currently regional law seems to have the biggest impact on the institutionalization of a globalized internet, I wonder if one day the net legislation will override regional considerations on freedom of expression in places like China. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 14:46, 17 February 2013 (EST)

****

The short, low budget video that became associated with the September 11, 2012 demonstrations at the American Embassy in Cairo is a case in point. York, Budish and Sellers all make valid points on this subject. I have to wonder, though, does the censorship that was exercised by blocking the video from being accessed in particular countries actually hinder those countries from having the free flow of conversation that might change the need to have the video blocked in the first place? I have read that the video initially depicts the mistreatment of Copts (a historic Orthodox Christian group) in Egypt. This is a valid conversation to have. Copts are a dwindling population in Egypt, not because they are converting to other religions, but because they are leaving Egypt seeking to live in countries where they will receive equal treatment in practice and under the law. Unfortunately, the video apparently goes on to depict the Egyptian majority religion in a demeaning light. That distraction, and the focus on it, has led to the censorship. Unfortunately, this also means that the more important theme of the video has been lost to the controversy. Egyptian society does need to have the conversation about religion as a basis for biased treatment. Some are having the conversation, but not all Egyptians are ready for that conversation. So here is something to consider: As Egyptians reach out to the world through the Internet, they know that they will encounter issues that do not align with their culture and values. As Westerners learn that world cultures need not westernize to get along in the world, Egyptians have opportunity to see that not all in the world will Islamize either. Additionally, because the West allows freedom for individuals to express themselves does not mean that the individual doing the expressing speaks on our behalf. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 00:46, 19 February 2013 (EST)

******

The articles for this week's lecture were phenomenal and categorical, but, were mostly politically charged versions of the "same information". Some things I have realized are that for instance the content of the Rowe vs. Wade argumentation, when typed as a citation or otherwise, is used by a lot of people as an immediate panacea to afford dissident contractualism. Regardless of the policy discussed within these articles this class is to discuss power and the integration of the internet into a system that is more than mere speculation. this quasi-pragmatic approach must be considered insane because the method used, here, is merely the economical perspective which for me bears little creedance. That typed, I continue: Is the regeneration of information bad? Now I will answer that question. No, and yes. Firstly, the internet certainly allows people to ascend to higher levels of Kantian reasoning regardless of the words written in a journal or in a blog or in a form of electronic communication. This data is then cited and reworked until it becomes common knowledge and then is the option for the individual to better understand the content from a more socialized perspective. An example here is that the dissemination of knowledge is good yet the method used is not always the target of concern. For all of those who deem the aspects of religion as something other than a latin language transcription, the articles this week proved that spin is not just a publication or a ping pong technique. Here game theory can be applied but not to Capital. Therefore, events such as internet rerouting, contract security, and the better integration of citations implicitly within work becomes essential. So regardless of nuomenon or phenomenon there really is an arbiter in between and that consolidated entity is the IP address, with all due respects to this course. To analyze, the recitation of information is always plagiarism except in the individual interested in experimenting with a progressive knack for Hegel and that is far from elucidated contextually, as I have learned. Further, the Pragmatic approach falters here because the institutor is consciously pragmatic (which yields another demention). In conclusion, this weeks articles were outdated and not relevant at all to current politics except for the knowledge that reading an article once does not mean that the article's meaning will not change as per the viewing after the transcriber has essentially made the knowledge structured as is Vygotzky's theory of Social Constructionism. Finally, where one deems dimention from these articles is "greek to me". [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 09:12, 19 February 2013 (EST)

*****

I enjoyed reading article by Rachel Whetstone about free speech and free expression within the Internet, as it has been a hallmark of a successful democracy of a free society. In my view, the Internet and diverse communication technologies have become the main tools for expanding the thought of free speech by sharing the information around the globe. However, what is acceptable? Due to culture differences and diverse historical background, indeed, it could be “acceptable to one person and may be offensive to another”. However, I believe that future of Internet within free speech will continue and progress, by mainly recognizing the potential of new innovative technologies, while the First Amendment protection could host as a legal liability for content posted by users. Is the free speech is the main concern of diverse societies? The article “The evolving landscape of Internet control” supports the idea, that freedom speech shouldn’t be our main concern, but the “ddos attacks, site hijacking and defacement” should be the priority, which I completely agree with. We are using the Internet on the daily basis to pay the bills and even to do our taxes, the information is on the www, which must be protected and controlled on the highest levels in this digital age. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:18, 19 February 2013 (EST)

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

2013-02-12T16:58:52Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{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 ==

== 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)

Assignment 1 Submissions

2013-02-11T17:36:36Z

User777: /* 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

***

Asmith

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)

*****

TAG Student ID#10789842
Assignment #1

'''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)

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2013-02-05T18:08:31Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 5'''

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

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

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Optional Readings ==

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

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

</onlyinclude>
== Assignment 1 ==

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

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

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

Prepared by TAG

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

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

**********

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

**********

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

***********

Two separate but related thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-02-03T14:51:41Z

User777: /* 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)

******

This whole section of Introduction I found very compelling. The language of the assignment was at first a bit unusual but now I am getting used to such communication. To duscuss the problems I have noticed with the internet, most noteably the discussion about Chinese, I found very compelling. Being different languages cave different means of speech production, the understanding that internet lauguage, like a fax machine, is actually the English I learned made me flip![[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 15:48, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

A cultural change associated with digital technologies is how we share things that we create, whether it is music, photographs, videos/movies, etc and how the "ownership" of these items is decided. Between SOPA and PIPA and other copyright legislation, as well as the whole idea of open access, as much as we are able to share things with each other so much easier through technology, it opens a whole set of challenges as to how and if we monitor and control the sharing.

Another change is the reliance we have on search engines like Yahoo and Google in how we find information. While we use these gateways to comb the Internet for us and to make the process seemingly simpler, we also, at times, have a false sense of comfort that we are getting all of the information available through these search engines when that’s not always the case. As we have fewer and fewer search engines available, the monopoly that a search engine has on our ability to find information and relevant information online grows. And as this happens, we also tend to settle for the initial results rather than taking the time to dig deeper. We put a lot of faith in our search engines.

The Internet has given us numerous new ways to interact and communicate with each other. One way in particular that I think has really changed how we communicate is the anonymity that the Internet provides. There are challenges and opportunities that arise from this. While people often will say things online anonymously that they may not say to a person in real life there are often times where being able to be anonymous on the Internet, allows people a sense of comfort and place that may be lacking in their everyday life. [[User:Nfonsh|Nfonsh]] 16:05, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I believe that the revolution in cloud computing offers the greatest potential to reshape the landscapes of various sectors and institutions. Take online media for example; In the past 15 years, we have seen the eradication of media giants like Blockbusters and Borders due to the increase in accessibility of online media. Hubs like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and other online institutions offer a wider selection and more accessible means of acquiring movies, music, and books. Another positive benefit as a result of the growth in the cloud is greater ease of accessibility over a wider range of devices to digital content. Institutions like Harvard, MIT, and TED have made it possible to access educational information and series on devices like the iPad and iPhone. I believe that this kind of freedom of information will very shortly become the new standard for information access so that the entire world may consume digital media with the ease of accessing it through a personal smart device. While there is great upside with the revolution in speed and efficiency of online access and cloud computing, the greatest risk is security. Because a greater concentration of more valuable information will be stored on networks vulnerable to hackers, I believe that online security will be one of the most important focal points of the next 10 years. As sectors and institutions make the transition to the online world, they will necessitate a more reliable solution to safeguarding highly sensitive information like social security numbers, credit card information, and personal privacy. The Gizmodo story here highlights some of the potential personal privacy issues that will need to be addressed in the near future: http://gizmodo.com/5880593/the-apple-bug-that-let-us-spy-on-a-total-strangers-iphone [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 17:34, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
Historically, humans innovate for the purpose of communication, so the most significant change associated with digital technologies is how communication has become easier. The possibility of faster communication influences in all aspects of people's life. Easy communication also implies more access to information, and that is exactly what runs the world today. Those who are able to take advantage of all this available information to make fair commercial relations without invading other's privacy will succeed. However, the biggest challenge is related to privacy, too. Is it possible to regulate internet without censorship? Internet is currently the arena where a big conflict between freedom of expression and safety is playing out.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 20:13, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
There are two technologies, or classes of technologies, which I believe have had a significant social, cultural, political and economic effect on the world. The first are called web 2.0 technologies, which imply a new version of something but really is just an evolution of the way people used the world wide web. The web first came into existence in 1994 when web browsers and the language of the web - HTML - became prevalent. Static web pages were built by the millions and the three letters www and the phrase "dot com" became part of many people's lexicon. However, starting in the late 1990's and into the early 2000's, people were learning to use the same world wide web in different ways. Collaboration was becoming common with wikis (like this page) and content/document sharing application such as Microsoft Sharepoint. Social networking sites, most notably MySpace and Facebook, in addition to video sharing sites like YouTube allowed user-driven content to drive a good chunk of Internet activity. This mini-revolution allowed the Internet to go from being a place where your average person went to be a consumer of information to a place where the same average person would create and generate information as much as consume it. These technologies also made the Internet much more friendly to the young, old and people of all ages who were not overly tech savvy.

The second class of technologies that have revolutionized the world to a large extent are wireless technologies. This includes satellite, cellular, WiFi (802.11) and Bluetooth which all have had a profound effect on connecting the average person up to the global network of digital information more easily and frequently. Fifteen years ago, only a small fragment of the population owned cellular phones. In 2013, a large majority of the population owns cellular phones, many of which are smart phones with touch screens, access to hundreds of thousands of applications and other features such as cameras and Internet access. Wireless technologies have also brought the ability to communicate with much of the world to places where wired infrastructure does not currently exist. Wireless communications have opened up the online world to people across the globe who wouldn't otherwise have access to such a place.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 23:44, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I think what's striking is how digital technologies have empowered both decentralized grassroots movements as well as centralized corporate and political institutions. Using the Internet, businesses can profit from enormous amounts of consumer data, broaden markets, and globalize their workforce, while governments are afforded new platforms for engaging with citizens (We the People petitioning system) or censoring and monitoring them. At the same time, citizens gain amazing new tools for media production and self-expression, collective organization, and knowledge access. Sometimes top-down centralization and bottom-up decentralization interact together to make everyone better off (New York City's 311 program for example) other times they fundamentally clash (BitTorrent and the recording industries). So to me, digital tech intensifies the struggle between bottom up and top down powers and increases the complexity in the relationship, as both forces struggle to understand what the Internet is, what it can do, and what it should be.

Look forward to exploring this theme in class. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:40, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*******

Assignment 0

I think the top three challenges of the Internet are:

1. Network neutrality - telco's dictating to me what traffic is good / bad, and given that, what I'd have to pay more for to use the 'bad' apps

2. Governments tapping and spying on the internets users

3. Government's using the internet as a battlefield (cyberwar).

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 21:51, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

The spread of digital technology has impacted and changed the way the global society communicates and operates. It seems the increased speed, frequency, access, and reach of digital communicates has had the most significant impact economically, socially, culturally, and politically. These positive impacts have come with many unintended consequences left to be managed or navigated.--[[User:Jspain|Jspain]] 10:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

During my recent travels in Southeast Asia, I observed a great many people using internet accessible smart phones, including new iphones, in both the urban and rural areas of Thailand, Cambodia and Singapore. How will this proliferating access to the world wide web affect those societies that reputedly limit free speech, especially in the area of political dissent? [[User:Nleblanc|Nleblanc]] 10:30, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

Top three challenges of the internet are:

1. Government seeking more control, through laws and taxes
2. Piracy and anti-piracy activities
3. The changing nature of privacy

[[User:Jennga|Jennga]] 12:00, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Good afternoon, the must big changes in the society, since internet have been created are:

1. There´s a new concept of the right of freedom expressión.

2. Therés a new concept of what is the best way to protect intellectual property.

3. Finally one of the must sensitive changes, is that we all can know what is happening around the world in just one second.
´´´´
natalia.

********

A list of the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies would certainly include: the complexity of financial instruments and the difficulty governments and central banks are having understanding and regulating them; the issues regarding government surveillance of not only its citizens, but of citizens of other countries both within and outside its borders, what governments are choosing to do with this information, and the relative slowness of the courts and laws to react; and the facilitation of communication among geographically disparate groups: for example the use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube during the Arab Spring to create a sense of common cause, as well as to distribute images that built a large base of support globally for governments to respond, making it difficult, for example, for the U.S. to continue to support governments that were less than democratic, but perhaps, more than useful. It would be hard to ignore the changes digital technologies have had on our daily lives - who carries a map when traveling, when we can create and e-mail a url with the day’s locations to our phones and open this map to get directions from where we are to where we want to go next, how wonderful to carry not one, but many books and magazines in a device smaller than a deck of cards and be able to use that device to purchase more, anytime, anywhere, and finally, what bliss to be able skim a long list of voice mail rather than replaying each one over and over again to get to that all-important name and phone number.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:28, 29 January 2013 (EST)

********

Between the several changes that internet and digital technologies brought, I would like to mention:

1) The widespread of information and knowledge. Nowadays you don't have to go to India to know how Indian's think, you can just get into a forum and speak with an Indian yourself; you can study and get a degree or do an investigation for a thesis from your own house and a service for a person in Europe can be given by someone in Asia, just to mention some examples. Knowledge is at the distance of a click, but still there are lots of people having difficulties to access it. Thus, one of the main challenges I think we are facing nowadays is to find the way to actually empower people for them to be able to make the most of what internet and digital technologies offer us.

2) The possibility of everyone to have a voice in a discussion, and to build support towards that voice. It has been mentioned before the role 2.0 technologies had in unifying people during the arab spring, or the "Indignados" movement that started in Spain.

3) The possibility to crowdsource and co create. Before social media, content was created by one person and read by another one but nowadays everyone has the opportunity to create content, and that content can easily be improved by lots of people willing to. The power of crowdsourcing and co creating is changing the way governments, business, universities or NGOs work in order to became more open and collaborative. Open Data is playing a key role in giving people the tool to create new products and services as well as improving the existing ones. [[User:Maria|Maria]] 14:41, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

While the Internet has been a boon in many areas, it is clear that society didn't have a chance to really think through the long term consequences of this technology. Like all major overlays to how a society functions, a newness offers the opportunity for change and growth. As mentioned in the class material, while the original plan was to have a base line of equal access, the users of the technology became more powerful than the technology itself. Governments forged beachheads in the form of firewalls and spyware and societies shook out into the clusters that were familiar and comforting. Even with the access, the multitudes of messaging slow most of us down from engaging the other side in the argument mostly out of sheer exhaustion. "The world at our finger tips" has us using the Internet in all hardware forms for everything from the world events to what is happening on your street. Has our reliance on Internet cloud based services made us complacent or curious to know more about things that would have taken weeks - perhaps months - to be aware of in prior times (those times not being that long ago) With all this digital nakedness, the pendulum has started to swing in the other direction. As the EU presented the legal argument for the "right to be forgotten" in the digital world, it will be interesting to see if global access will further compartmentalize. A ruling of that nature of the next couple of years in and of itself would have massive ramifications on social, economic and political frameworks.[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 14:55, 29 January 2013 (EST) Caroline

******
I'm not too great at naming superlatives, but here are some interesting social phenomena I believe have emerged from cyber-social culture.
Online communities and social media have created an opportunity to construct an online identity, to carefully curate one's own portrayal. People suffering offline from prejudice or persecution may seek shelter in their cyber personas and communities, as they offer a safe space for them to form real relationships and be their truest selves. However, on the other hand, the process of picking and choosing certain parts of a persona to reveal and others to hide may have psychological and social consequences. For instance, "liking" items on Facebook or writing an "About Me" on OkCupid facilitates a segmented rather fluid sense of self. While Internet communities have offered shelter to many lost, confused stragglers, it also makes us prone to labeling, categorizing, and sub-sub-sub categorizing ourselves in order to "belong."

Social media has also made comparison to others unavoidable, but also against much more unrealistic standards. Nobody uploads pictures while alone, watching Forrest Gump, tears splattering into their tub of Phish Food ice cream. Unless you do, and then you're keeping it real. Nobody posts what they don't want others to see or know. Basically, social media exposes us to a very choppy, glossy image of how people live. Based on my own personal experience, nothing makes me more depressed then going on Facebook when I'm depressed.

Lastly, open-source cyber environments such as Wikipedia and Ebay have granted more faith in direct democracy. The success of an EBay store, for instance, relies almost entirely on the experiences of each previous customer. There are no representatives or filtration systems, every user's experience counts fully and equally. However, it is not just the use of the direct democracy that makes these online environments remarkable, but how such systems have proven themselves reliable and prosperous.

[[User:Jax|Jax]] 15:54, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1. With such a massive amount of information readily available on the internet and through other digital media (how to tend a garden, how to change your brakes, proper etiquette at a Japanese wedding, etc.) there is no longer a large need for the cultural passing of information through the generations which has been the norm for tens of thousands of years. Instead we now need only to learn the building blocks of HOW to learn and WHEN/WHERE to apply this information which is a radical shift from memorization to computation. This also allows us to spend the preponderance of our time focusing on skill specialization and leisure activities.

2. Social media is having many impacts on our culture which are simultaneously abstracting us from the real-world relationships we would have without digital technology as well as connecting us with those far-flung friends/family we would otherwise completely lose touch with.

3. The internet causes a very interesting effect with it's ability to create heavily polarized groups based on issues they might not have understood prior to the digital age. Mass media (Newspapers, Radio & TV News) dominated the information available to the public for the 20th century and now people are able to access information from other countries (BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.) With so many different viewpoints not being controlled by large corporations and/or the government shows many different vectors into the same "stories". [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****

The internet is beyond fascinating in its potential to redefine politics of global control. As this week's readings suggest, the internet is not governable in the way that most governments work to control their citizens. It offers an alternative space for those whose voices are often shut down in the public sphere. Anonymity and global reach provides comfort in individuals sharing their viewpoints, and as seen in the recent uprisings in the Middle East, can pave the way for mass movements to arise in bringing forth change and connect with likeminded individuals who may not have been given the opportunity to meet otherwise.
What's more, the rise in digital technologies offers immense opportunities for redefining local economies in lesser developed regions. Today, you see the rise in mobile phones changing the way farmers in East Africa determine which crops to bring to market and the price at which they plan to sell. The communications barriers have consequently relaxed and made way for innovation and experimentation.
Yet another example of change as a result of digital technologies' spread is the perceived cultural blending worldwide. Globalisation's effects have meshed languages, cultural norms, consumer likes and dislikes, etc. Some even fear the convergence of culture in response to technology's spread threatens the legacies of indigenous cultural groups and erodes at their continuity.
Kaley Sweeney 16:26, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****
I believe that one of the most significant changes associated with the Internet is the way people can buy and sell services and products. E-commerce made a complete revolution in the way people do business without any precedence in our history. According to Forrester Research in http://www.wwwmetrics.com/shopping.htm the use of the Internet for shopping has been exponentially increasing. Only in the United States, $248.7 billion online sales are expected by 2014 and 10% more is forecast for the next five years. In Western Europe, online sales are expected to reach approximately 14 billion euros ($155.7 billion) and a growth of 11% percent annually. Another change that is related to e-commerce is the fact that it gives people so many tools in doing their own business that it could trigger the extinction of some markets. For example, travel companies might disappear in the near future because it will be impossible to compete with virtual companies like "Booking.com" or “Expedia”, which have very competitive prices, a wide variety of options and can be quickly and easily operated by anyone without the inconvenience of having to go to a travel agency. In summary, e-commerce is not just a revolution in the way people can buy and sell services and products, but it will be yet a cause of extinction for some traditional markets for which the impacts are still unknown. ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 16:27, 29 January 2013 (EST))

*********

1) Many digital users believe that all content on the Internet is (or should be) free. What are the costs of a seemingly "free" Internet? Who funds or pays for the Internet?
2) As digital technologies become increasingly significant in daily life, should we work to lessen the digital divide domestically? Internationally?[[User:JW|JW]] 16:39, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********
We stand at the precipice of a new world. We hold an opportunity to connect with each other and share information like never before possible in human history. Now the question is what do we do with it?

How do we bridge the gap between the new hive mind of the internet and the preexisting societies that surround us?

•“This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different” John Perry Barlow (A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace).

•“ Information wants to be free” (Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

•Ability to organize, discover, exclude and deliver information ( Tim Berners- Lee )

•“ If you want to liberate a society just give them the internet” – Wael Ghonim ( MacKinnon)

How do we protect this opportunity and prevent a “race to the bottom"?

•“I don’t like the outcome of what happens with these things… but we have to follow the law.” Yang ( Yahoo Founder from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

•We need a broader more sustained internet freedom movement and a culture of sustained activism (Rebecca MacKinnon: Let’s take back the internet!)

•Citizen-centric evolution of the internet (Mackinnon)

How do we ensure that all people have access to information and prevent “those in advantageous position” from reaping the benefits of the internet?

•We need to create a society of computer literate people

•Encourage innovation and exploration

•Will language connect or separate us ? On learning English “Because, father, the computer speaks English.” ( Al Gore repeating anecdote from President Akayev of Kyrgyzstan from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

By Alybarbour

******

Doug Forbes
Assignment Zero
1 29 13

From the 50’s thought the 60’s there was a communications theorist named Marshal McLuhan. He devoted a lot of thought and writing around the invention of Television, noting that the existence of the medium itself had impact beyond any specific content coming across it. He coined a phrase, “The medium is the massage.” He felt that the ability to bring images of experiences in real time across vast distances would bring an awareness of each others circumstance in an unprecedented way and that cold lead to deeper understanding of one another as people and as countries. He referred to this as a “Global Village” and wrote a book in 1968 that included that phrase in the title. However, by 1964, he had already written in his book “Understanding Media” that the networks of the day were “timid giants,” there position was so important and so visible that they had become very weary of promoting non-mainstream positions because they could so readily create chaotic responses.

Looking at the class readings so far, I’d say that the advent of the Internet made for very similar expectations in, promoting unrestricted speech, moving it across borders and across economic boundaries as well. Barlow’s Declaration of Independence in Cyberspace makes it clear that people felt they had an area of total free speech but unlike our founding fathers, he forgot to shoot the opposition. The most notable change that around the Internet in the readings is that those expectations which seemed almost inevitable to begin with have, to a very large extent not come to fruition. So to me the most important challenges that presents are in achieving some kind of balance in the areas of accessibility, governmental censorship as well as economic censorship.

Taking these in order, Hargittai’s writings on the Digital Divide make it pretty clear that Barlow’s “World that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth,” was wildly optimistic. With third world countries lagging behind, and minorities and the elderly behind as well, those things could be improved on a bit but some of the statistical information has probably been improved on in some areas since his latest stats which are around 2004. In particular India seems to have made very good use of the Internet and related telecommunications technologies to improve their economic status, just call Dell for tech support and you’ll get a good idea. Hargittai also points out that user skill level is crucial to making use of Internet access. Her suggestion that education is around this is perhaps the most important one as we only have so much control over what happens in other countries. The NYC school system has done quite a bit of experimenting with this with very favorable results, as a videographer, I did several video’s that demonstrated very good results when students had access to laptops and also one teacher in particular was big on having younger students use small, relatively affordable tablets, noting that third graders became enthusiastic to do rewrites of papers for the first time. Zickuhr and Smith point out that “Both African Americans and English-speaking Latinos are as likely as whites to own any sort of mobile phone, and are more likely to use their phones for a wider range of activities.” Which may make for an opportunity to flatten the digital divide a bit so that may take care of some of the access point issues in the U.S. but it still remains important to teach our youth to be good searches and Internet savvy, which may not be as easy to accomplish using cell phones.

Regarding Government censorship and control, Goldsmith and Wu point out that while countries such as China may go way to far in their blocking of Internet, countries like Frances’ opposition to a Nazi auction site may be perfectly reasonable given their history and culture and a one size fits all set of laws would not be desirable. The challenge here is very similar to all other media, holding governments to their standards where we can. I must say I thought Google and Yahoo missed on opportunity. Goldsmith and Wu quote Yang of Yahoo as saying, "To be doing business in China, or anywhere else in the world, we have to comply with local law." As proponents of free speech, just deciding that one must operate within the laws of a country like China and at least in Google’s case hoping that they would loosen up a bit by themselves, missed the fact that to be a major world power as the Chinese are clearly achieving, they would have to have a search technology and I think our search engine people could have demanded some reform. Instead they wimped out or got greedy and got hacked in the process. That was part of the challenge the Internet posed and they did not meet that part which is a human as well as political great loss as we might have benefited greatly from some loosening of controls on there part. It’s interesting to note that the ability to censor sites was not even discovered until it was brought into light in the Yahoo/France case. The technology had a built in capability that was discovered by a commercially developed technology.

This leads to the last and greatest challenge of the set, the role commercial censorship of Internet information. This is most challenging in part because our corporations are so pervasive, partly we don’t have a say in their goings on much and partly because as one reading points out, companies are beholden to their share holders and not to the general citizenry and sometimes these appear to conflict, at least in a short term view. MacKinnon has a great example of this in the Julian Assange happenings. Here we have someone very much in the business of providing otherwise hard to obtain information and with no conviction or even start of due process, his provider and I believe also his credit card processors pull out on him. We seem to have the most difficult time coming up with answers to this area of problems, it’s the one way in which the Internet is living up to it’s promise of eluding solutions to control. What would “taking back the Internet” look like? More Government intrusion? That is not always such a good idea and the antithesis of what it’s earlier proponents hoped for. Can you imagine that a company would be required to keep an account with someone who has just published national security secrets? Even if someone discarded the Assange case as an outlier, one is still left with the troubling mechanics of censorship of information by companies and corporations some of whom may be very savvy at Internet manipulation. Hargittai states that censorship or gatekeeping [in this country] is now occurring at the level of information exposure. MacKinnon calls for vigilant activism in keeping the Internet as free as possible, but it is very hard to regulate or in any way control gatekeeping at the level of information exposure. We used to have a fairness in reporting doctrine for the televised press, that was based on running an opposing view to any story, but with billions of pages, this type of legislation provides only a partial solution.

In conclusion, while the Internet may not have lived up to the expectations of proponents such as Barlow, it may still be the closets thing we have to what he envisioned. Of the three challenges discussed, the digital divide may suffer from some Mathew effect, but my sense is that as time goes on, this will lesson, especially here in the U.S. for the reasons discussed above.

Balance in Government regulation will continue to be an issue that we must be aware of and influence where possible as the situation warrants. While we should keep as much freedom as possible, should we really be able to skirt existing laws about background checks and buy six thousand rounds of ammunition in hundred round belts?

Corporate Censorship which mostly takes place at the level of information exposure is very problematic and perhaps can only be combated with counter information exposure. I would say that the Internet does provide a counterbalancing force. Lots of news items and discourse emerge from it, such as those of Matt Drudge, Jullian Assange just to name a couple of the most notable ones. If one really feels strongly about an issue that is buried in reams of digital masking, posting to your social media site, posting to blogs, calling and discussing with friends and colleagues, or, by whatever means is available. As the recent internet and telecommunications involvement in the Arab Spring Uprisings suggest, I believe that the Internet still provides the closest means possible to achieving it’s touted mandate of getting muffled voices heard across as many borders and obstacles as possible and as we think about legislation and control, preservation of that freedom should be paramount.
[[User:Douglas Forbes|Douglas Forbes]] 17:03, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Looking forward I think that there are a few problems that we can foresee for the rapidly growing and developing, global internet. I think that there are issues which we cannot now foresee, since innovation can surprise us with new unintended consequences. Among the problems that can be foreseen:
1. Expansion of infrastructure while keeping traffic moving free of charge (net neutrality).
2. Security threats and mal-ware.
3. There will continue to arise new social issues that are only present because of the available technology.
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 17:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1) Prior the internet, people were judged on their outward physical appearance, resume and their reactions or attitudes in terms of their likes or dislikes. However, with the increasing consumption of media and technology, people have become inclined to disclose detailed information about themselves, and others, that are virtually permanent and displayed for the whole world to see. People are now represented in new ways, from news articles to their online memberships, all of which could be accessed within seconds. In recent years, the proliferation of popular social networking websites only added to the internet profiling phenomenon. For the first time, people are willingly joining the websites and disclosing easily categorized demographic information, as well as personal preferences and ideas publicly. Arguably, the move towards globalization has never been shown as transparently as in these social networking websites, with members from all over the world. However, the goldmine of information collected in these websites, pose serious privacy issues and implications of a third-party controlling our representations of self. Websites are now essentially "owning representations" of users around the world. What is private to us, is much harder to distinguish. This is an issue, because the courts and legal rights within a country may not be aligned with the ever-changing aspects of the internet.

2) Although there are many negative aspects to the internet world, it is also innovative and "helpful" in terms of gathering data from all the world. What I mean by this is that, programs now have the innovation of millions of users around the world, and can be accessed within seconds. It saves costs, and time: E-commerce, E-mail. The exposure to information is limitless.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:29, 29 January 2013 (EST)

The internet has changed and will continue to change our morals in many regards. On the one hand the proliferation of pornography has made exposure to previously heavily regulated acts much more commonplace for young men, this changes their views of women and relationships. On the other hand, the internet has exposed many in society to ideas and beliefs that they could never have encountered previously (i.e. individuals raised in a strict religious community can now easily gain exposure to those with differing beliefs). It has also increased international trade and broken down economic barriers (ebay now allows you to purchase direct from chinese manufacturers). I am excited to undertake an academic study of the internet with all of you. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 17:35, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

The Internet has allowed information to flow much more quickly and cheaply between various points on the globe.

Marketing and shopping have been significantly changed by the advents of secure remote transactions and targeted advertising. Potential customers no longer have to be local. In the case of software and media companies, distributing products is especially easy.

Countries are more intertwined than they were previously, thanks to quick informational access to distant places. Borders pose less of a limit on the exchange of cultural information between geographic locations (although things like the Great Firewall of China may curtail this benefit in many cases). Cheap, accessible long-distance communication between friends and family allows social lives to continue despite often being dislocated due to modern nuclear family lifestyles.

Content is often pooled together and ranked preferentially, allowing large quantities of relatively optimized (in the sense of meeting the users expectations more than older means of seeking information) to be rapidly found. Examples include Google indexing and the Reddit karma system. The creation of search engines like Google has allowed people to rapidly find new sources of information, permitting people to be more dynamic in their decision-making. It is no longer as necessary to anticipate every problem you will encounter, or rely on an uninformed solution. On the flip side, motivated cognition may limit or even invert this advantage by causing people to only seek evidence confirming their beliefs. The larger a pool of information, the easier it is to find evidence for any arbitrary viewpoint. Thus, one probable effect of the Internet (albeit difficult to quantify) is that people are now more confident of their beliefs, sometimes even if they’re not true. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 21:43, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******
To understand the present and future of the Internet, one must first understand its past.

The Internet protocols were developed by the Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA) as part of an effort to design a robust communications network. The ARPAnet, which linked together a number of high tech research institutions, was deployed both to demonstrate the workability of the protocols and to facilitate communication among research communities.
I would also present the argument that as the internet goes, so does the need for more social responsibility regarding uses. '''Hunter'''

******

I believe one of the most significant changes in this digital world is the upheaval of the intellectual property world, and i don't see the issue coming to an end any time soon.

The other major change that we are going through now is the different groups and countries around the world fighting digitally for control over the World Wide Web. Fighting for control over it's users, its economic value, and over the content that should and should not be allowed on the current "wild west web".

It will be interesting to see how these world wide issues could/will be solved with so many competing groups around the globe.
[[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 10:30, 30 January 2013 (EST)

******

1) ''Online education'' has changed the way students learn, interact, and absorb new information. Harvard has offered extension classes for more than a century, but online classes are relatively new, altering the educational landscape for students worldwide. The notion of online education has opened new doors for many who would otherwise be excluded from diverse learning institutions, i.e., Harvard. Many students have yet to discover the benefits of online education: recorded lectures, interactive chat sessions with classmates worldwide, skype-like discussions, etc. From my perspective, as a 4th year Extension student, online education represents the future. Children, adolescents, and adults will soon enter the online academic universe, learning from others with unique cultural backgrounds, languages, and global outlooks...it is only the beginning.

2) ''Online fundraising'' has allowed non-profit organizations to blossom and flourish worldwide. For example, in 2004, I founded an NGO in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, dedicated to education and personal development. As the founder, I have been tasked with raising tens of thousands of dollars to keep the organization alive for the past nine years. Online fundraising/giving campaigns have enabled me to reach hundreds of donors quickly, many of whom I have never met. Payment sources such as Paypal and Firstgiving have allowed me to raise funds through a secure streamlined approach. Donors do not need to put a check in the mail; they simple need to enter their credit card information and the funds are routed to an underserved population in the favelas (shanty towns) of Rio de Janeiro. This method of giving--helping underserved communities obtain a better lifestyle--is monumental in the world of NGOs. It has not only changed how people support causes, but it has also brought transparency to so many grassroots movements around the globe. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 16:42, 30 January 2013 (EST)

*********
1. One of the most significant changes to me seems to be the greater access to education for people who might not have the opportunity to access it in a traditional way. Since the internet is available all of the time if a course or training is available via the web then someone can access the information at any time.
2. A significant social change that has cropped up I believe is associated with children’s use of the internet, and how that has affected them and our society. Most children do not understanding the ramification of their actions or laws that pertain to them when they make threats or show provocative pictures of each other on the internet.[[User:Jaronica|Jaronica]] 18:35, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I think there are many significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies, but I'm stating the obvious. I will list a few below:

1) It has opened up global markets for both legal and black market goods to much of the developed world

2) It has allowed communications on an unprecedented scale.

3) It is allowing for almost unchecked observation or spying by companies and governments
on people on businesses. [[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 14:31, 31 January 2013 (EST)

By way of significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies:

1) It has exposed the glaring fallacy of so-called American exceptionalism by providing access, both legal and illegal, to American institutions like universities and banks.

2) It has altered the neuroplasticity of an entire generation by removing the resilience protective factors afforded by direct human to human verbal and physical contact.

3) In conjunction with recent legislation, it has opened the flood gates to foreign financial influence on U.S. politics.[[User:Getmike|Getmike]] 16:10, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Digital technologies, mostly through the Internet has exponentially expanded the amount and scope of information available as well as equally expanding access to it by those who have heretofore been restricted if not completely shut out from it because of their geographical, social, cultural and political environment. This is the latest advancement in mankind’s knowledge and ability to advance, much as in the past there have been other almost sudden in times of our evolution changes such as the printing press, electricity, advancements in transportation, the telephone and radio and television.
The ability to read and contribute to scientific and other advancements was restricted before the printing press to the privileged elite. The Internet has made economic ability almost insignificant; Electricity removed the obstacle of light and expanded every day precipitously. Advances in telecommunication end much isolation. Digital technological breakthroughs advanced in one fell swoop what it had previously taken centuries to do in all of these other genres. [[User:Rich|Rich]] 09:16, 1 February 2013 (EST)

To keep it balanced, I’m introducing one positive example of digital technologies and one negative.

1. The negative. I know about sexting and cyberbulling, but this week I was appalled learn about online Sexual Shaming. The NPR talk show On Point with Tom Ashbrook had a segment on Cyberbullying and Sexual Shaming (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/28/cyberbullying) which originally aired on Jan. 28, 2013 at 11:00 A.M. It featured an interview with Temitayo Fagbenle, a teenager who has been reporting on this issue for Radio Rookies, on WNYC, New York Public Radio. Apparently, it is very common for boys to post pictures and videos of of girls they’ve had sex with on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. More often than not, the girls didn’t know that these images had been taken. The boys reward each other for doing this by clicking “like” and within minutes the images are spread around the world to hundreds or even thousands of onlookers. But, even worse, boys and especially girls then “shame” the victim by posting scathing remarks about her. Temitayo, the teenage reporter, told about her experiences of trying to get Facebook to take down an image of a naked teenage girl. When she reported the picture to Facebook as harassment, she got a response back that the picture didn’t violate the community standard. But, Facebook community standards say you can’t have explicitly sexual content when minors are involved. She then reported the image again, this time as being pornographic and received a similar message from Facebook. Often there are no repercussions for posting these pictures and videos. School administrators often feel there is nothing they can do if the posting didn’t take place on school grounds. But sometimes schools take the position that it is a criminal matter and if they hear about it, they report it to the authorities.

2. The positive. MOOCS-Massive Open Online Courses. There is plenty of buzz about MOOCS these days. Some people view them as a huge threat to our colleges and universities because they’re giving away knowledge for free when most people are spending thousands of dollars for this knowledge. Others see it as providing educational opportunities to people around the globe who just a couple of years ago could never even dream of taking a course from Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. I recently completed a Stanford Online MOOC, Designing a New Learning Environment (http://venture-lab.org/education). In this course I worked with a team to solve a real-world problem: helping Doctors Without Borders to design a better way to train their staff who were working in the field. Our team brought together instructional designers, educational entrepreneurs, a medical business owner and staff from Doctors without Borders. We were located in California, Massachusetts, England and Spain. While it may have been possible for a team like this to have accomplished the same things if we had been paying $2000 to take a similar online course through Harvard Extension School, the fact that there were thousands of students in the course made it possible for people with similar interests and diverse talents to find each other. But, I think the most compelling aspects of MOOCS is illustrated by the story of Battushig, the Mongolian student who took the MITX class, Circuits and Electronics with a group of his peers when he was 15. He not only received an A in the course, but also got 100% on the final. I heard Anant Agarwal, director of MITx talk about this course and how proud he was of Battushig, especially since the final exam had been designed so that most MIT students would not be able to get 100%. Without this MOOC, students like Battushig would have very little if any opportunity to take, and excel in, a course like this. I’m very excited about the new edX initiative, which is bringing together courses from Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, and the University of Texas. I’ll be watching closely to see how this, and other MOOCS develop.
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 23:39, 1 February 2013 (EST)

I think that the ongoing conversation in the education world over what it means to be "digitally literate" contains embedded within it evidence of many significant changes associated with digital technologies. While an initial basic definition of "digital literacy" might have encompassed only the surface-level processes required to work various technologies (i.e. the button-pushing, the menu-scrolling, the basic how-to), the conversation has quickly evolved into a discussion of what broader skills are necessary for individuals to interact "well" with technology. That is, what different ways of thinking do we need to take advantage of our tools, how do we adapt and how has technology already changed us? Some examples might be 1.) the skill of information synthesis 2.) the skill of working across mediums, both to digest content and to produce it 3.) the skill of replication and remixing 4.) the skill of constant curation, 3.) the skill of time-sensitive analysis and snap recommendation. All of these skills might be behaviors that existed prior to the proliferation of digital technologies for consumer use, but the digital explosion has nevertheless made them explicit, made them ubiquitous, and, arguably, made them necessary, thus changing not only our thinking about education, but also about the skills that we ourselves broadly value, in informal social settings, in the workplace, or elsewhere.
--[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 12:49, 2 February 2013 (EST)

****
1: Democracy within Internet, I believe it is a significant characteristic within social arena- the freedom of any information. 2 Regulatory issues based on culture; I think it plays an important role within social and political criteria that brings ample diversifications within cultural policy and policymaking criteria. 3 Copyright; as Internet has affected everyone in many areas of their life, it also allows to build resistance of use, regulations and rights between diverse audiences.
[[User: user777|user777]] 17:01, 2 February 2013 (EST)
[[User:User777|user777]] 09:51, 3 February 2013 (EST)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-02-02T21:57:14Z

User777: /* Class Discussion */

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-02-02T21:54:54Z

User777: /* 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)

******

This whole section of Introduction I found very compelling. The language of the assignment was at first a bit unusual but now I am getting used to such communication. To duscuss the problems I have noticed with the internet, most noteably the discussion about Chinese, I found very compelling. Being different languages cave different means of speech production, the understanding that internet lauguage, like a fax machine, is actually the English I learned made me flip![[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 15:48, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

A cultural change associated with digital technologies is how we share things that we create, whether it is music, photographs, videos/movies, etc and how the "ownership" of these items is decided. Between SOPA and PIPA and other copyright legislation, as well as the whole idea of open access, as much as we are able to share things with each other so much easier through technology, it opens a whole set of challenges as to how and if we monitor and control the sharing.

Another change is the reliance we have on search engines like Yahoo and Google in how we find information. While we use these gateways to comb the Internet for us and to make the process seemingly simpler, we also, at times, have a false sense of comfort that we are getting all of the information available through these search engines when that’s not always the case. As we have fewer and fewer search engines available, the monopoly that a search engine has on our ability to find information and relevant information online grows. And as this happens, we also tend to settle for the initial results rather than taking the time to dig deeper. We put a lot of faith in our search engines.

The Internet has given us numerous new ways to interact and communicate with each other. One way in particular that I think has really changed how we communicate is the anonymity that the Internet provides. There are challenges and opportunities that arise from this. While people often will say things online anonymously that they may not say to a person in real life there are often times where being able to be anonymous on the Internet, allows people a sense of comfort and place that may be lacking in their everyday life. [[User:Nfonsh|Nfonsh]] 16:05, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I believe that the revolution in cloud computing offers the greatest potential to reshape the landscapes of various sectors and institutions. Take online media for example; In the past 15 years, we have seen the eradication of media giants like Blockbusters and Borders due to the increase in accessibility of online media. Hubs like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and other online institutions offer a wider selection and more accessible means of acquiring movies, music, and books. Another positive benefit as a result of the growth in the cloud is greater ease of accessibility over a wider range of devices to digital content. Institutions like Harvard, MIT, and TED have made it possible to access educational information and series on devices like the iPad and iPhone. I believe that this kind of freedom of information will very shortly become the new standard for information access so that the entire world may consume digital media with the ease of accessing it through a personal smart device. While there is great upside with the revolution in speed and efficiency of online access and cloud computing, the greatest risk is security. Because a greater concentration of more valuable information will be stored on networks vulnerable to hackers, I believe that online security will be one of the most important focal points of the next 10 years. As sectors and institutions make the transition to the online world, they will necessitate a more reliable solution to safeguarding highly sensitive information like social security numbers, credit card information, and personal privacy. The Gizmodo story here highlights some of the potential personal privacy issues that will need to be addressed in the near future: http://gizmodo.com/5880593/the-apple-bug-that-let-us-spy-on-a-total-strangers-iphone [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 17:34, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
Historically, humans innovate for the purpose of communication, so the most significant change associated with digital technologies is how communication has become easier. The possibility of faster communication influences in all aspects of people's life. Easy communication also implies more access to information, and that is exactly what runs the world today. Those who are able to take advantage of all this available information to make fair commercial relations without invading other's privacy will succeed. However, the biggest challenge is related to privacy, too. Is it possible to regulate internet without censorship? Internet is currently the arena where a big conflict between freedom of expression and safety is playing out.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 20:13, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
There are two technologies, or classes of technologies, which I believe have had a significant social, cultural, political and economic effect on the world. The first are called web 2.0 technologies, which imply a new version of something but really is just an evolution of the way people used the world wide web. The web first came into existence in 1994 when web browsers and the language of the web - HTML - became prevalent. Static web pages were built by the millions and the three letters www and the phrase "dot com" became part of many people's lexicon. However, starting in the late 1990's and into the early 2000's, people were learning to use the same world wide web in different ways. Collaboration was becoming common with wikis (like this page) and content/document sharing application such as Microsoft Sharepoint. Social networking sites, most notably MySpace and Facebook, in addition to video sharing sites like YouTube allowed user-driven content to drive a good chunk of Internet activity. This mini-revolution allowed the Internet to go from being a place where your average person went to be a consumer of information to a place where the same average person would create and generate information as much as consume it. These technologies also made the Internet much more friendly to the young, old and people of all ages who were not overly tech savvy.

The second class of technologies that have revolutionized the world to a large extent are wireless technologies. This includes satellite, cellular, WiFi (802.11) and Bluetooth which all have had a profound effect on connecting the average person up to the global network of digital information more easily and frequently. Fifteen years ago, only a small fragment of the population owned cellular phones. In 2013, a large majority of the population owns cellular phones, many of which are smart phones with touch screens, access to hundreds of thousands of applications and other features such as cameras and Internet access. Wireless technologies have also brought the ability to communicate with much of the world to places where wired infrastructure does not currently exist. Wireless communications have opened up the online world to people across the globe who wouldn't otherwise have access to such a place.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 23:44, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I think what's striking is how digital technologies have empowered both decentralized grassroots movements as well as centralized corporate and political institutions. Using the Internet, businesses can profit from enormous amounts of consumer data, broaden markets, and globalize their workforce, while governments are afforded new platforms for engaging with citizens (We the People petitioning system) or censoring and monitoring them. At the same time, citizens gain amazing new tools for media production and self-expression, collective organization, and knowledge access. Sometimes top-down centralization and bottom-up decentralization interact together to make everyone better off (New York City's 311 program for example) other times they fundamentally clash (BitTorrent and the recording industries). So to me, digital tech intensifies the struggle between bottom up and top down powers and increases the complexity in the relationship, as both forces struggle to understand what the Internet is, what it can do, and what it should be.

Look forward to exploring this theme in class. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:40, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*******

Assignment 0

I think the top three challenges of the Internet are:

1. Network neutrality - telco's dictating to me what traffic is good / bad, and given that, what I'd have to pay more for to use the 'bad' apps

2. Governments tapping and spying on the internets users

3. Government's using the internet as a battlefield (cyberwar).

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 21:51, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

The spread of digital technology has impacted and changed the way the global society communicates and operates. It seems the increased speed, frequency, access, and reach of digital communicates has had the most significant impact economically, socially, culturally, and politically. These positive impacts have come with many unintended consequences left to be managed or navigated.--[[User:Jspain|Jspain]] 10:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

During my recent travels in Southeast Asia, I observed a great many people using internet accessible smart phones, including new iphones, in both the urban and rural areas of Thailand, Cambodia and Singapore. How will this proliferating access to the world wide web affect those societies that reputedly limit free speech, especially in the area of political dissent? [[User:Nleblanc|Nleblanc]] 10:30, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

Top three challenges of the internet are:

1. Government seeking more control, through laws and taxes
2. Piracy and anti-piracy activities
3. The changing nature of privacy

[[User:Jennga|Jennga]] 12:00, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Good afternoon, the must big changes in the society, since internet have been created are:

1. There´s a new concept of the right of freedom expressión.

2. Therés a new concept of what is the best way to protect intellectual property.

3. Finally one of the must sensitive changes, is that we all can know what is happening around the world in just one second.
´´´´
natalia.

********

A list of the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies would certainly include: the complexity of financial instruments and the difficulty governments and central banks are having understanding and regulating them; the issues regarding government surveillance of not only its citizens, but of citizens of other countries both within and outside its borders, what governments are choosing to do with this information, and the relative slowness of the courts and laws to react; and the facilitation of communication among geographically disparate groups: for example the use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube during the Arab Spring to create a sense of common cause, as well as to distribute images that built a large base of support globally for governments to respond, making it difficult, for example, for the U.S. to continue to support governments that were less than democratic, but perhaps, more than useful. It would be hard to ignore the changes digital technologies have had on our daily lives - who carries a map when traveling, when we can create and e-mail a url with the day’s locations to our phones and open this map to get directions from where we are to where we want to go next, how wonderful to carry not one, but many books and magazines in a device smaller than a deck of cards and be able to use that device to purchase more, anytime, anywhere, and finally, what bliss to be able skim a long list of voice mail rather than replaying each one over and over again to get to that all-important name and phone number.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:28, 29 January 2013 (EST)

********

Between the several changes that internet and digital technologies brought, I would like to mention:

1) The widespread of information and knowledge. Nowadays you don't have to go to India to know how Indian's think, you can just get into a forum and speak with an Indian yourself; you can study and get a degree or do an investigation for a thesis from your own house and a service for a person in Europe can be given by someone in Asia, just to mention some examples. Knowledge is at the distance of a click, but still there are lots of people having difficulties to access it. Thus, one of the main challenges I think we are facing nowadays is to find the way to actually empower people for them to be able to make the most of what internet and digital technologies offer us.

2) The possibility of everyone to have a voice in a discussion, and to build support towards that voice. It has been mentioned before the role 2.0 technologies had in unifying people during the arab spring, or the "Indignados" movement that started in Spain.

3) The possibility to crowdsource and co create. Before social media, content was created by one person and read by another one but nowadays everyone has the opportunity to create content, and that content can easily be improved by lots of people willing to. The power of crowdsourcing and co creating is changing the way governments, business, universities or NGOs work in order to became more open and collaborative. Open Data is playing a key role in giving people the tool to create new products and services as well as improving the existing ones. [[User:Maria|Maria]] 14:41, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

While the Internet has been a boon in many areas, it is clear that society didn't have a chance to really think through the long term consequences of this technology. Like all major overlays to how a society functions, a newness offers the opportunity for change and growth. As mentioned in the class material, while the original plan was to have a base line of equal access, the users of the technology became more powerful than the technology itself. Governments forged beachheads in the form of firewalls and spyware and societies shook out into the clusters that were familiar and comforting. Even with the access, the multitudes of messaging slow most of us down from engaging the other side in the argument mostly out of sheer exhaustion. "The world at our finger tips" has us using the Internet in all hardware forms for everything from the world events to what is happening on your street. Has our reliance on Internet cloud based services made us complacent or curious to know more about things that would have taken weeks - perhaps months - to be aware of in prior times (those times not being that long ago) With all this digital nakedness, the pendulum has started to swing in the other direction. As the EU presented the legal argument for the "right to be forgotten" in the digital world, it will be interesting to see if global access will further compartmentalize. A ruling of that nature of the next couple of years in and of itself would have massive ramifications on social, economic and political frameworks.[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 14:55, 29 January 2013 (EST) Caroline

******
I'm not too great at naming superlatives, but here are some interesting social phenomena I believe have emerged from cyber-social culture.
Online communities and social media have created an opportunity to construct an online identity, to carefully curate one's own portrayal. People suffering offline from prejudice or persecution may seek shelter in their cyber personas and communities, as they offer a safe space for them to form real relationships and be their truest selves. However, on the other hand, the process of picking and choosing certain parts of a persona to reveal and others to hide may have psychological and social consequences. For instance, "liking" items on Facebook or writing an "About Me" on OkCupid facilitates a segmented rather fluid sense of self. While Internet communities have offered shelter to many lost, confused stragglers, it also makes us prone to labeling, categorizing, and sub-sub-sub categorizing ourselves in order to "belong."

Social media has also made comparison to others unavoidable, but also against much more unrealistic standards. Nobody uploads pictures while alone, watching Forrest Gump, tears splattering into their tub of Phish Food ice cream. Unless you do, and then you're keeping it real. Nobody posts what they don't want others to see or know. Basically, social media exposes us to a very choppy, glossy image of how people live. Based on my own personal experience, nothing makes me more depressed then going on Facebook when I'm depressed.

Lastly, open-source cyber environments such as Wikipedia and Ebay have granted more faith in direct democracy. The success of an EBay store, for instance, relies almost entirely on the experiences of each previous customer. There are no representatives or filtration systems, every user's experience counts fully and equally. However, it is not just the use of the direct democracy that makes these online environments remarkable, but how such systems have proven themselves reliable and prosperous.

[[User:Jax|Jax]] 15:54, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1. With such a massive amount of information readily available on the internet and through other digital media (how to tend a garden, how to change your brakes, proper etiquette at a Japanese wedding, etc.) there is no longer a large need for the cultural passing of information through the generations which has been the norm for tens of thousands of years. Instead we now need only to learn the building blocks of HOW to learn and WHEN/WHERE to apply this information which is a radical shift from memorization to computation. This also allows us to spend the preponderance of our time focusing on skill specialization and leisure activities.

2. Social media is having many impacts on our culture which are simultaneously abstracting us from the real-world relationships we would have without digital technology as well as connecting us with those far-flung friends/family we would otherwise completely lose touch with.

3. The internet causes a very interesting effect with it's ability to create heavily polarized groups based on issues they might not have understood prior to the digital age. Mass media (Newspapers, Radio & TV News) dominated the information available to the public for the 20th century and now people are able to access information from other countries (BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.) With so many different viewpoints not being controlled by large corporations and/or the government shows many different vectors into the same "stories". [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****

The internet is beyond fascinating in its potential to redefine politics of global control. As this week's readings suggest, the internet is not governable in the way that most governments work to control their citizens. It offers an alternative space for those whose voices are often shut down in the public sphere. Anonymity and global reach provides comfort in individuals sharing their viewpoints, and as seen in the recent uprisings in the Middle East, can pave the way for mass movements to arise in bringing forth change and connect with likeminded individuals who may not have been given the opportunity to meet otherwise.
What's more, the rise in digital technologies offers immense opportunities for redefining local economies in lesser developed regions. Today, you see the rise in mobile phones changing the way farmers in East Africa determine which crops to bring to market and the price at which they plan to sell. The communications barriers have consequently relaxed and made way for innovation and experimentation.
Yet another example of change as a result of digital technologies' spread is the perceived cultural blending worldwide. Globalisation's effects have meshed languages, cultural norms, consumer likes and dislikes, etc. Some even fear the convergence of culture in response to technology's spread threatens the legacies of indigenous cultural groups and erodes at their continuity.
Kaley Sweeney 16:26, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****
I believe that one of the most significant changes associated with the Internet is the way people can buy and sell services and products. E-commerce made a complete revolution in the way people do business without any precedence in our history. According to Forrester Research in http://www.wwwmetrics.com/shopping.htm the use of the Internet for shopping has been exponentially increasing. Only in the United States, $248.7 billion online sales are expected by 2014 and 10% more is forecast for the next five years. In Western Europe, online sales are expected to reach approximately 14 billion euros ($155.7 billion) and a growth of 11% percent annually. Another change that is related to e-commerce is the fact that it gives people so many tools in doing their own business that it could trigger the extinction of some markets. For example, travel companies might disappear in the near future because it will be impossible to compete with virtual companies like "Booking.com" or “Expedia”, which have very competitive prices, a wide variety of options and can be quickly and easily operated by anyone without the inconvenience of having to go to a travel agency. In summary, e-commerce is not just a revolution in the way people can buy and sell services and products, but it will be yet a cause of extinction for some traditional markets for which the impacts are still unknown. ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 16:27, 29 January 2013 (EST))

*********

1) Many digital users believe that all content on the Internet is (or should be) free. What are the costs of a seemingly "free" Internet? Who funds or pays for the Internet?
2) As digital technologies become increasingly significant in daily life, should we work to lessen the digital divide domestically? Internationally?[[User:JW|JW]] 16:39, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********
We stand at the precipice of a new world. We hold an opportunity to connect with each other and share information like never before possible in human history. Now the question is what do we do with it?

How do we bridge the gap between the new hive mind of the internet and the preexisting societies that surround us?

•“This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different” John Perry Barlow (A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace).

•“ Information wants to be free” (Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

•Ability to organize, discover, exclude and deliver information ( Tim Berners- Lee )

•“ If you want to liberate a society just give them the internet” – Wael Ghonim ( MacKinnon)

How do we protect this opportunity and prevent a “race to the bottom"?

•“I don’t like the outcome of what happens with these things… but we have to follow the law.” Yang ( Yahoo Founder from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

•We need a broader more sustained internet freedom movement and a culture of sustained activism (Rebecca MacKinnon: Let’s take back the internet!)

•Citizen-centric evolution of the internet (Mackinnon)

How do we ensure that all people have access to information and prevent “those in advantageous position” from reaping the benefits of the internet?

•We need to create a society of computer literate people

•Encourage innovation and exploration

•Will language connect or separate us ? On learning English “Because, father, the computer speaks English.” ( Al Gore repeating anecdote from President Akayev of Kyrgyzstan from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

By Alybarbour

******

Doug Forbes
Assignment Zero
1 29 13

From the 50’s thought the 60’s there was a communications theorist named Marshal McLuhan. He devoted a lot of thought and writing around the invention of Television, noting that the existence of the medium itself had impact beyond any specific content coming across it. He coined a phrase, “The medium is the massage.” He felt that the ability to bring images of experiences in real time across vast distances would bring an awareness of each others circumstance in an unprecedented way and that cold lead to deeper understanding of one another as people and as countries. He referred to this as a “Global Village” and wrote a book in 1968 that included that phrase in the title. However, by 1964, he had already written in his book “Understanding Media” that the networks of the day were “timid giants,” there position was so important and so visible that they had become very weary of promoting non-mainstream positions because they could so readily create chaotic responses.

Looking at the class readings so far, I’d say that the advent of the Internet made for very similar expectations in, promoting unrestricted speech, moving it across borders and across economic boundaries as well. Barlow’s Declaration of Independence in Cyberspace makes it clear that people felt they had an area of total free speech but unlike our founding fathers, he forgot to shoot the opposition. The most notable change that around the Internet in the readings is that those expectations which seemed almost inevitable to begin with have, to a very large extent not come to fruition. So to me the most important challenges that presents are in achieving some kind of balance in the areas of accessibility, governmental censorship as well as economic censorship.

Taking these in order, Hargittai’s writings on the Digital Divide make it pretty clear that Barlow’s “World that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth,” was wildly optimistic. With third world countries lagging behind, and minorities and the elderly behind as well, those things could be improved on a bit but some of the statistical information has probably been improved on in some areas since his latest stats which are around 2004. In particular India seems to have made very good use of the Internet and related telecommunications technologies to improve their economic status, just call Dell for tech support and you’ll get a good idea. Hargittai also points out that user skill level is crucial to making use of Internet access. Her suggestion that education is around this is perhaps the most important one as we only have so much control over what happens in other countries. The NYC school system has done quite a bit of experimenting with this with very favorable results, as a videographer, I did several video’s that demonstrated very good results when students had access to laptops and also one teacher in particular was big on having younger students use small, relatively affordable tablets, noting that third graders became enthusiastic to do rewrites of papers for the first time. Zickuhr and Smith point out that “Both African Americans and English-speaking Latinos are as likely as whites to own any sort of mobile phone, and are more likely to use their phones for a wider range of activities.” Which may make for an opportunity to flatten the digital divide a bit so that may take care of some of the access point issues in the U.S. but it still remains important to teach our youth to be good searches and Internet savvy, which may not be as easy to accomplish using cell phones.

Regarding Government censorship and control, Goldsmith and Wu point out that while countries such as China may go way to far in their blocking of Internet, countries like Frances’ opposition to a Nazi auction site may be perfectly reasonable given their history and culture and a one size fits all set of laws would not be desirable. The challenge here is very similar to all other media, holding governments to their standards where we can. I must say I thought Google and Yahoo missed on opportunity. Goldsmith and Wu quote Yang of Yahoo as saying, "To be doing business in China, or anywhere else in the world, we have to comply with local law." As proponents of free speech, just deciding that one must operate within the laws of a country like China and at least in Google’s case hoping that they would loosen up a bit by themselves, missed the fact that to be a major world power as the Chinese are clearly achieving, they would have to have a search technology and I think our search engine people could have demanded some reform. Instead they wimped out or got greedy and got hacked in the process. That was part of the challenge the Internet posed and they did not meet that part which is a human as well as political great loss as we might have benefited greatly from some loosening of controls on there part. It’s interesting to note that the ability to censor sites was not even discovered until it was brought into light in the Yahoo/France case. The technology had a built in capability that was discovered by a commercially developed technology.

This leads to the last and greatest challenge of the set, the role commercial censorship of Internet information. This is most challenging in part because our corporations are so pervasive, partly we don’t have a say in their goings on much and partly because as one reading points out, companies are beholden to their share holders and not to the general citizenry and sometimes these appear to conflict, at least in a short term view. MacKinnon has a great example of this in the Julian Assange happenings. Here we have someone very much in the business of providing otherwise hard to obtain information and with no conviction or even start of due process, his provider and I believe also his credit card processors pull out on him. We seem to have the most difficult time coming up with answers to this area of problems, it’s the one way in which the Internet is living up to it’s promise of eluding solutions to control. What would “taking back the Internet” look like? More Government intrusion? That is not always such a good idea and the antithesis of what it’s earlier proponents hoped for. Can you imagine that a company would be required to keep an account with someone who has just published national security secrets? Even if someone discarded the Assange case as an outlier, one is still left with the troubling mechanics of censorship of information by companies and corporations some of whom may be very savvy at Internet manipulation. Hargittai states that censorship or gatekeeping [in this country] is now occurring at the level of information exposure. MacKinnon calls for vigilant activism in keeping the Internet as free as possible, but it is very hard to regulate or in any way control gatekeeping at the level of information exposure. We used to have a fairness in reporting doctrine for the televised press, that was based on running an opposing view to any story, but with billions of pages, this type of legislation provides only a partial solution.

In conclusion, while the Internet may not have lived up to the expectations of proponents such as Barlow, it may still be the closets thing we have to what he envisioned. Of the three challenges discussed, the digital divide may suffer from some Mathew effect, but my sense is that as time goes on, this will lesson, especially here in the U.S. for the reasons discussed above.

Balance in Government regulation will continue to be an issue that we must be aware of and influence where possible as the situation warrants. While we should keep as much freedom as possible, should we really be able to skirt existing laws about background checks and buy six thousand rounds of ammunition in hundred round belts?

Corporate Censorship which mostly takes place at the level of information exposure is very problematic and perhaps can only be combated with counter information exposure. I would say that the Internet does provide a counterbalancing force. Lots of news items and discourse emerge from it, such as those of Matt Drudge, Jullian Assange just to name a couple of the most notable ones. If one really feels strongly about an issue that is buried in reams of digital masking, posting to your social media site, posting to blogs, calling and discussing with friends and colleagues, or, by whatever means is available. As the recent internet and telecommunications involvement in the Arab Spring Uprisings suggest, I believe that the Internet still provides the closest means possible to achieving it’s touted mandate of getting muffled voices heard across as many borders and obstacles as possible and as we think about legislation and control, preservation of that freedom should be paramount.
[[User:Douglas Forbes|Douglas Forbes]] 17:03, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Looking forward I think that there are a few problems that we can foresee for the rapidly growing and developing, global internet. I think that there are issues which we cannot now foresee, since innovation can surprise us with new unintended consequences. Among the problems that can be foreseen:
1. Expansion of infrastructure while keeping traffic moving free of charge (net neutrality).
2. Security threats and mal-ware.
3. There will continue to arise new social issues that are only present because of the available technology.
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 17:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1) Prior the internet, people were judged on their outward physical appearance, resume and their reactions or attitudes in terms of their likes or dislikes. However, with the increasing consumption of media and technology, people have become inclined to disclose detailed information about themselves, and others, that are virtually permanent and displayed for the whole world to see. People are now represented in new ways, from news articles to their online memberships, all of which could be accessed within seconds. In recent years, the proliferation of popular social networking websites only added to the internet profiling phenomenon. For the first time, people are willingly joining the websites and disclosing easily categorized demographic information, as well as personal preferences and ideas publicly. Arguably, the move towards globalization has never been shown as transparently as in these social networking websites, with members from all over the world. However, the goldmine of information collected in these websites, pose serious privacy issues and implications of a third-party controlling our representations of self. Websites are now essentially "owning representations" of users around the world. What is private to us, is much harder to distinguish. This is an issue, because the courts and legal rights within a country may not be aligned with the ever-changing aspects of the internet.

2) Although there are many negative aspects to the internet world, it is also innovative and "helpful" in terms of gathering data from all the world. What I mean by this is that, programs now have the innovation of millions of users around the world, and can be accessed within seconds. It saves costs, and time: E-commerce, E-mail. The exposure to information is limitless.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:29, 29 January 2013 (EST)

The internet has changed and will continue to change our morals in many regards. On the one hand the proliferation of pornography has made exposure to previously heavily regulated acts much more commonplace for young men, this changes their views of women and relationships. On the other hand, the internet has exposed many in society to ideas and beliefs that they could never have encountered previously (i.e. individuals raised in a strict religious community can now easily gain exposure to those with differing beliefs). It has also increased international trade and broken down economic barriers (ebay now allows you to purchase direct from chinese manufacturers). I am excited to undertake an academic study of the internet with all of you. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 17:35, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

The Internet has allowed information to flow much more quickly and cheaply between various points on the globe.

Marketing and shopping have been significantly changed by the advents of secure remote transactions and targeted advertising. Potential customers no longer have to be local. In the case of software and media companies, distributing products is especially easy.

Countries are more intertwined than they were previously, thanks to quick informational access to distant places. Borders pose less of a limit on the exchange of cultural information between geographic locations (although things like the Great Firewall of China may curtail this benefit in many cases). Cheap, accessible long-distance communication between friends and family allows social lives to continue despite often being dislocated due to modern nuclear family lifestyles.

Content is often pooled together and ranked preferentially, allowing large quantities of relatively optimized (in the sense of meeting the users expectations more than older means of seeking information) to be rapidly found. Examples include Google indexing and the Reddit karma system. The creation of search engines like Google has allowed people to rapidly find new sources of information, permitting people to be more dynamic in their decision-making. It is no longer as necessary to anticipate every problem you will encounter, or rely on an uninformed solution. On the flip side, motivated cognition may limit or even invert this advantage by causing people to only seek evidence confirming their beliefs. The larger a pool of information, the easier it is to find evidence for any arbitrary viewpoint. Thus, one probable effect of the Internet (albeit difficult to quantify) is that people are now more confident of their beliefs, sometimes even if they’re not true. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 21:43, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******
To understand the present and future of the Internet, one must first understand its past.

The Internet protocols were developed by the Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA) as part of an effort to design a robust communications network. The ARPAnet, which linked together a number of high tech research institutions, was deployed both to demonstrate the workability of the protocols and to facilitate communication among research communities.
I would also present the argument that as the internet goes, so does the need for more social responsibility regarding uses. '''Hunter'''

******

I believe one of the most significant changes in this digital world is the upheaval of the intellectual property world, and i don't see the issue coming to an end any time soon.

The other major change that we are going through now is the different groups and countries around the world fighting digitally for control over the World Wide Web. Fighting for control over it's users, its economic value, and over the content that should and should not be allowed on the current "wild west web".

It will be interesting to see how these world wide issues could/will be solved with so many competing groups around the globe.
[[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 10:30, 30 January 2013 (EST)

******

1) ''Online education'' has changed the way students learn, interact, and absorb new information. Harvard has offered extension classes for more than a century, but online classes are relatively new, altering the educational landscape for students worldwide. The notion of online education has opened new doors for many who would otherwise be excluded from diverse learning institutions, i.e., Harvard. Many students have yet to discover the benefits of online education: recorded lectures, interactive chat sessions with classmates worldwide, skype-like discussions, etc. From my perspective, as a 4th year Extension student, online education represents the future. Children, adolescents, and adults will soon enter the online academic universe, learning from others with unique cultural backgrounds, languages, and global outlooks...it is only the beginning.

2) ''Online fundraising'' has allowed non-profit organizations to blossom and flourish worldwide. For example, in 2004, I founded an NGO in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, dedicated to education and personal development. As the founder, I have been tasked with raising tens of thousands of dollars to keep the organization alive for the past nine years. Online fundraising/giving campaigns have enabled me to reach hundreds of donors quickly, many of whom I have never met. Payment sources such as Paypal and Firstgiving have allowed me to raise funds through a secure streamlined approach. Donors do not need to put a check in the mail; they simple need to enter their credit card information and the funds are routed to an underserved population in the favelas (shanty towns) of Rio de Janeiro. This method of giving--helping underserved communities obtain a better lifestyle--is monumental in the world of NGOs. It has not only changed how people support causes, but it has also brought transparency to so many grassroots movements around the globe. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 16:42, 30 January 2013 (EST)

*********
1. One of the most significant changes to me seems to be the greater access to education for people who might not have the opportunity to access it in a traditional way. Since the internet is available all of the time if a course or training is available via the web then someone can access the information at any time.
2. A significant social change that has cropped up I believe is associated with children’s use of the internet, and how that has affected them and our society. Most children do not understanding the ramification of their actions or laws that pertain to them when they make threats or show provocative pictures of each other on the internet.[[User:Jaronica|Jaronica]] 18:35, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I think there are many significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies, but I'm stating the obvious. I will list a few below:

1) It has opened up global markets for both legal and black market goods to much of the developed world

2) It has allowed communications on an unprecedented scale.

3) It is allowing for almost unchecked observation or spying by companies and governments
on people on businesses. [[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 14:31, 31 January 2013 (EST)

By way of significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies:

1) It has exposed the glaring fallacy of so-called American exceptionalism by providing access, both legal and illegal, to American institutions like universities and banks.

2) It has altered the neuroplasticity of an entire generation by removing the resilience protective factors afforded by direct human to human verbal and physical contact.

3) In conjunction with recent legislation, it has opened the flood gates to foreign financial influence on U.S. politics.[[User:Getmike|Getmike]] 16:10, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Digital technologies, mostly through the Internet has exponentially expanded the amount and scope of information available as well as equally expanding access to it by those who have heretofore been restricted if not completely shut out from it because of their geographical, social, cultural and political environment. This is the latest advancement in mankind’s knowledge and ability to advance, much as in the past there have been other almost sudden in times of our evolution changes such as the printing press, electricity, advancements in transportation, the telephone and radio and television.
The ability to read and contribute to scientific and other advancements was restricted before the printing press to the privileged elite. The Internet has made economic ability almost insignificant; Electricity removed the obstacle of light and expanded every day precipitously. Advances in telecommunication end much isolation. Digital technological breakthroughs advanced in one fell swoop what it had previously taken centuries to do in all of these other genres. [[User:Rich|Rich]] 09:16, 1 February 2013 (EST)

To keep it balanced, I’m introducing one positive example of digital technologies and one negative.

1. The negative. I know about sexting and cyberbulling, but this week I was appalled learn about online Sexual Shaming. The NPR talk show On Point with Tom Ashbrook had a segment on Cyberbullying and Sexual Shaming (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/28/cyberbullying) which originally aired on Jan. 28, 2013 at 11:00 A.M. It featured an interview with Temitayo Fagbenle, a teenager who has been reporting on this issue for Radio Rookies, on WNYC, New York Public Radio. Apparently, it is very common for boys to post pictures and videos of of girls they’ve had sex with on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. More often than not, the girls didn’t know that these images had been taken. The boys reward each other for doing this by clicking “like” and within minutes the images are spread around the world to hundreds or even thousands of onlookers. But, even worse, boys and especially girls then “shame” the victim by posting scathing remarks about her. Temitayo, the teenage reporter, told about her experiences of trying to get Facebook to take down an image of a naked teenage girl. When she reported the picture to Facebook as harassment, she got a response back that the picture didn’t violate the community standard. But, Facebook community standards say you can’t have explicitly sexual content when minors are involved. She then reported the image again, this time as being pornographic and received a similar message from Facebook. Often there are no repercussions for posting these pictures and videos. School administrators often feel there is nothing they can do if the posting didn’t take place on school grounds. But sometimes schools take the position that it is a criminal matter and if they hear about it, they report it to the authorities.

2. The positive. MOOCS-Massive Open Online Courses. There is plenty of buzz about MOOCS these days. Some people view them as a huge threat to our colleges and universities because they’re giving away knowledge for free when most people are spending thousands of dollars for this knowledge. Others see it as providing educational opportunities to people around the globe who just a couple of years ago could never even dream of taking a course from Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. I recently completed a Stanford Online MOOC, Designing a New Learning Environment (http://venture-lab.org/education). In this course I worked with a team to solve a real-world problem: helping Doctors Without Borders to design a better way to train their staff who were working in the field. Our team brought together instructional designers, educational entrepreneurs, a medical business owner and staff from Doctors without Borders. We were located in California, Massachusetts, England and Spain. While it may have been possible for a team like this to have accomplished the same things if we had been paying $2000 to take a similar online course through Harvard Extension School, the fact that there were thousands of students in the course made it possible for people with similar interests and diverse talents to find each other. But, I think the most compelling aspects of MOOCS is illustrated by the story of Battushig, the Mongolian student who took the MITX class, Circuits and Electronics with a group of his peers when he was 15. He not only received an A in the course, but also got 100% on the final. I heard Anant Agarwal, director of MITx talk about this course and how proud he was of Battushig, especially since the final exam had been designed so that most MIT students would not be able to get 100%. Without this MOOC, students like Battushig would have very little if any opportunity to take, and excel in, a course like this. I’m very excited about the new edX initiative, which is bringing together courses from Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, and the University of Texas. I’ll be watching closely to see how this, and other MOOCS develop.
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 23:39, 1 February 2013 (EST)

I think that the ongoing conversation in the education world over what it means to be "digitally literate" contains embedded within it evidence of many significant changes associated with digital technologies. While an initial basic definition of "digital literacy" might have encompassed only the surface-level processes required to work various technologies (i.e. the button-pushing, the menu-scrolling, the basic how-to), the conversation has quickly evolved into a discussion of what broader skills are necessary for individuals to interact "well" with technology. That is, what different ways of thinking do we need to take advantage of our tools, how do we adapt and how has technology already changed us? Some examples might be 1.) the skill of information synthesis 2.) the skill of working across mediums, both to digest content and to produce it 3.) the skill of replication and remixing 4.) the skill of constant curation, 3.) the skill of time-sensitive analysis and snap recommendation. All of these skills might be behaviors that existed prior to the proliferation of digital technologies for consumer use, but the digital explosion has nevertheless made them explicit, made them ubiquitous, and, arguably, made them necessary, thus changing not only our thinking about education, but also about the skills that we ourselves broadly value, in informal social settings, in the workplace, or elsewhere.
--[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 12:49, 2 February 2013 (EST)

**********
1: Democracy within Internet, I believe it is a significant characteristic within social arena- the freedom of any information. 2 Regulatory issues based on culture; I think it plays an important role within social and political criteria that brings ample diversifications within cultural policy and policymaking criteria. 3 Copyright; as Internet has affected everyone in many areas of their life, it also allows to build resistance of use, regulations and rights between diverse audiences.
[[User: user777|user777]] 17:00, 2 February 2013 (EST)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-02-02T21:51:54Z

User777: /* 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)

******

This whole section of Introduction I found very compelling. The language of the assignment was at first a bit unusual but now I am getting used to such communication. To duscuss the problems I have noticed with the internet, most noteably the discussion about Chinese, I found very compelling. Being different languages cave different means of speech production, the understanding that internet lauguage, like a fax machine, is actually the English I learned made me flip![[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 15:48, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

A cultural change associated with digital technologies is how we share things that we create, whether it is music, photographs, videos/movies, etc and how the "ownership" of these items is decided. Between SOPA and PIPA and other copyright legislation, as well as the whole idea of open access, as much as we are able to share things with each other so much easier through technology, it opens a whole set of challenges as to how and if we monitor and control the sharing.

Another change is the reliance we have on search engines like Yahoo and Google in how we find information. While we use these gateways to comb the Internet for us and to make the process seemingly simpler, we also, at times, have a false sense of comfort that we are getting all of the information available through these search engines when that’s not always the case. As we have fewer and fewer search engines available, the monopoly that a search engine has on our ability to find information and relevant information online grows. And as this happens, we also tend to settle for the initial results rather than taking the time to dig deeper. We put a lot of faith in our search engines.

The Internet has given us numerous new ways to interact and communicate with each other. One way in particular that I think has really changed how we communicate is the anonymity that the Internet provides. There are challenges and opportunities that arise from this. While people often will say things online anonymously that they may not say to a person in real life there are often times where being able to be anonymous on the Internet, allows people a sense of comfort and place that may be lacking in their everyday life. [[User:Nfonsh|Nfonsh]] 16:05, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I believe that the revolution in cloud computing offers the greatest potential to reshape the landscapes of various sectors and institutions. Take online media for example; In the past 15 years, we have seen the eradication of media giants like Blockbusters and Borders due to the increase in accessibility of online media. Hubs like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and other online institutions offer a wider selection and more accessible means of acquiring movies, music, and books. Another positive benefit as a result of the growth in the cloud is greater ease of accessibility over a wider range of devices to digital content. Institutions like Harvard, MIT, and TED have made it possible to access educational information and series on devices like the iPad and iPhone. I believe that this kind of freedom of information will very shortly become the new standard for information access so that the entire world may consume digital media with the ease of accessing it through a personal smart device. While there is great upside with the revolution in speed and efficiency of online access and cloud computing, the greatest risk is security. Because a greater concentration of more valuable information will be stored on networks vulnerable to hackers, I believe that online security will be one of the most important focal points of the next 10 years. As sectors and institutions make the transition to the online world, they will necessitate a more reliable solution to safeguarding highly sensitive information like social security numbers, credit card information, and personal privacy. The Gizmodo story here highlights some of the potential personal privacy issues that will need to be addressed in the near future: http://gizmodo.com/5880593/the-apple-bug-that-let-us-spy-on-a-total-strangers-iphone [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 17:34, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
Historically, humans innovate for the purpose of communication, so the most significant change associated with digital technologies is how communication has become easier. The possibility of faster communication influences in all aspects of people's life. Easy communication also implies more access to information, and that is exactly what runs the world today. Those who are able to take advantage of all this available information to make fair commercial relations without invading other's privacy will succeed. However, the biggest challenge is related to privacy, too. Is it possible to regulate internet without censorship? Internet is currently the arena where a big conflict between freedom of expression and safety is playing out.[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 20:13, 28 January 2013 (EST)

****
There are two technologies, or classes of technologies, which I believe have had a significant social, cultural, political and economic effect on the world. The first are called web 2.0 technologies, which imply a new version of something but really is just an evolution of the way people used the world wide web. The web first came into existence in 1994 when web browsers and the language of the web - HTML - became prevalent. Static web pages were built by the millions and the three letters www and the phrase "dot com" became part of many people's lexicon. However, starting in the late 1990's and into the early 2000's, people were learning to use the same world wide web in different ways. Collaboration was becoming common with wikis (like this page) and content/document sharing application such as Microsoft Sharepoint. Social networking sites, most notably MySpace and Facebook, in addition to video sharing sites like YouTube allowed user-driven content to drive a good chunk of Internet activity. This mini-revolution allowed the Internet to go from being a place where your average person went to be a consumer of information to a place where the same average person would create and generate information as much as consume it. These technologies also made the Internet much more friendly to the young, old and people of all ages who were not overly tech savvy.

The second class of technologies that have revolutionized the world to a large extent are wireless technologies. This includes satellite, cellular, WiFi (802.11) and Bluetooth which all have had a profound effect on connecting the average person up to the global network of digital information more easily and frequently. Fifteen years ago, only a small fragment of the population owned cellular phones. In 2013, a large majority of the population owns cellular phones, many of which are smart phones with touch screens, access to hundreds of thousands of applications and other features such as cameras and Internet access. Wireless technologies have also brought the ability to communicate with much of the world to places where wired infrastructure does not currently exist. Wireless communications have opened up the online world to people across the globe who wouldn't otherwise have access to such a place.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 23:44, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

I think what's striking is how digital technologies have empowered both decentralized grassroots movements as well as centralized corporate and political institutions. Using the Internet, businesses can profit from enormous amounts of consumer data, broaden markets, and globalize their workforce, while governments are afforded new platforms for engaging with citizens (We the People petitioning system) or censoring and monitoring them. At the same time, citizens gain amazing new tools for media production and self-expression, collective organization, and knowledge access. Sometimes top-down centralization and bottom-up decentralization interact together to make everyone better off (New York City's 311 program for example) other times they fundamentally clash (BitTorrent and the recording industries). So to me, digital tech intensifies the struggle between bottom up and top down powers and increases the complexity in the relationship, as both forces struggle to understand what the Internet is, what it can do, and what it should be.

Look forward to exploring this theme in class. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:40, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*******

Assignment 0

I think the top three challenges of the Internet are:

1. Network neutrality - telco's dictating to me what traffic is good / bad, and given that, what I'd have to pay more for to use the 'bad' apps

2. Governments tapping and spying on the internets users

3. Government's using the internet as a battlefield (cyberwar).

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 21:51, 28 January 2013 (EST)

******

The spread of digital technology has impacted and changed the way the global society communicates and operates. It seems the increased speed, frequency, access, and reach of digital communicates has had the most significant impact economically, socially, culturally, and politically. These positive impacts have come with many unintended consequences left to be managed or navigated.--[[User:Jspain|Jspain]] 10:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

During my recent travels in Southeast Asia, I observed a great many people using internet accessible smart phones, including new iphones, in both the urban and rural areas of Thailand, Cambodia and Singapore. How will this proliferating access to the world wide web affect those societies that reputedly limit free speech, especially in the area of political dissent? [[User:Nleblanc|Nleblanc]] 10:30, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********

Top three challenges of the internet are:

1. Government seeking more control, through laws and taxes
2. Piracy and anti-piracy activities
3. The changing nature of privacy

[[User:Jennga|Jennga]] 12:00, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Good afternoon, the must big changes in the society, since internet have been created are:

1. There´s a new concept of the right of freedom expressión.

2. Therés a new concept of what is the best way to protect intellectual property.

3. Finally one of the must sensitive changes, is that we all can know what is happening around the world in just one second.
´´´´
natalia.

********

A list of the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies would certainly include: the complexity of financial instruments and the difficulty governments and central banks are having understanding and regulating them; the issues regarding government surveillance of not only its citizens, but of citizens of other countries both within and outside its borders, what governments are choosing to do with this information, and the relative slowness of the courts and laws to react; and the facilitation of communication among geographically disparate groups: for example the use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube during the Arab Spring to create a sense of common cause, as well as to distribute images that built a large base of support globally for governments to respond, making it difficult, for example, for the U.S. to continue to support governments that were less than democratic, but perhaps, more than useful. It would be hard to ignore the changes digital technologies have had on our daily lives - who carries a map when traveling, when we can create and e-mail a url with the day’s locations to our phones and open this map to get directions from where we are to where we want to go next, how wonderful to carry not one, but many books and magazines in a device smaller than a deck of cards and be able to use that device to purchase more, anytime, anywhere, and finally, what bliss to be able skim a long list of voice mail rather than replaying each one over and over again to get to that all-important name and phone number.[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:28, 29 January 2013 (EST)

********

Between the several changes that internet and digital technologies brought, I would like to mention:

1) The widespread of information and knowledge. Nowadays you don't have to go to India to know how Indian's think, you can just get into a forum and speak with an Indian yourself; you can study and get a degree or do an investigation for a thesis from your own house and a service for a person in Europe can be given by someone in Asia, just to mention some examples. Knowledge is at the distance of a click, but still there are lots of people having difficulties to access it. Thus, one of the main challenges I think we are facing nowadays is to find the way to actually empower people for them to be able to make the most of what internet and digital technologies offer us.

2) The possibility of everyone to have a voice in a discussion, and to build support towards that voice. It has been mentioned before the role 2.0 technologies had in unifying people during the arab spring, or the "Indignados" movement that started in Spain.

3) The possibility to crowdsource and co create. Before social media, content was created by one person and read by another one but nowadays everyone has the opportunity to create content, and that content can easily be improved by lots of people willing to. The power of crowdsourcing and co creating is changing the way governments, business, universities or NGOs work in order to became more open and collaborative. Open Data is playing a key role in giving people the tool to create new products and services as well as improving the existing ones. [[User:Maria|Maria]] 14:41, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

While the Internet has been a boon in many areas, it is clear that society didn't have a chance to really think through the long term consequences of this technology. Like all major overlays to how a society functions, a newness offers the opportunity for change and growth. As mentioned in the class material, while the original plan was to have a base line of equal access, the users of the technology became more powerful than the technology itself. Governments forged beachheads in the form of firewalls and spyware and societies shook out into the clusters that were familiar and comforting. Even with the access, the multitudes of messaging slow most of us down from engaging the other side in the argument mostly out of sheer exhaustion. "The world at our finger tips" has us using the Internet in all hardware forms for everything from the world events to what is happening on your street. Has our reliance on Internet cloud based services made us complacent or curious to know more about things that would have taken weeks - perhaps months - to be aware of in prior times (those times not being that long ago) With all this digital nakedness, the pendulum has started to swing in the other direction. As the EU presented the legal argument for the "right to be forgotten" in the digital world, it will be interesting to see if global access will further compartmentalize. A ruling of that nature of the next couple of years in and of itself would have massive ramifications on social, economic and political frameworks.[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 14:55, 29 January 2013 (EST) Caroline

******
I'm not too great at naming superlatives, but here are some interesting social phenomena I believe have emerged from cyber-social culture.
Online communities and social media have created an opportunity to construct an online identity, to carefully curate one's own portrayal. People suffering offline from prejudice or persecution may seek shelter in their cyber personas and communities, as they offer a safe space for them to form real relationships and be their truest selves. However, on the other hand, the process of picking and choosing certain parts of a persona to reveal and others to hide may have psychological and social consequences. For instance, "liking" items on Facebook or writing an "About Me" on OkCupid facilitates a segmented rather fluid sense of self. While Internet communities have offered shelter to many lost, confused stragglers, it also makes us prone to labeling, categorizing, and sub-sub-sub categorizing ourselves in order to "belong."

Social media has also made comparison to others unavoidable, but also against much more unrealistic standards. Nobody uploads pictures while alone, watching Forrest Gump, tears splattering into their tub of Phish Food ice cream. Unless you do, and then you're keeping it real. Nobody posts what they don't want others to see or know. Basically, social media exposes us to a very choppy, glossy image of how people live. Based on my own personal experience, nothing makes me more depressed then going on Facebook when I'm depressed.

Lastly, open-source cyber environments such as Wikipedia and Ebay have granted more faith in direct democracy. The success of an EBay store, for instance, relies almost entirely on the experiences of each previous customer. There are no representatives or filtration systems, every user's experience counts fully and equally. However, it is not just the use of the direct democracy that makes these online environments remarkable, but how such systems have proven themselves reliable and prosperous.

[[User:Jax|Jax]] 15:54, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1. With such a massive amount of information readily available on the internet and through other digital media (how to tend a garden, how to change your brakes, proper etiquette at a Japanese wedding, etc.) there is no longer a large need for the cultural passing of information through the generations which has been the norm for tens of thousands of years. Instead we now need only to learn the building blocks of HOW to learn and WHEN/WHERE to apply this information which is a radical shift from memorization to computation. This also allows us to spend the preponderance of our time focusing on skill specialization and leisure activities.

2. Social media is having many impacts on our culture which are simultaneously abstracting us from the real-world relationships we would have without digital technology as well as connecting us with those far-flung friends/family we would otherwise completely lose touch with.

3. The internet causes a very interesting effect with it's ability to create heavily polarized groups based on issues they might not have understood prior to the digital age. Mass media (Newspapers, Radio & TV News) dominated the information available to the public for the 20th century and now people are able to access information from other countries (BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.) With so many different viewpoints not being controlled by large corporations and/or the government shows many different vectors into the same "stories". [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:01, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****

The internet is beyond fascinating in its potential to redefine politics of global control. As this week's readings suggest, the internet is not governable in the way that most governments work to control their citizens. It offers an alternative space for those whose voices are often shut down in the public sphere. Anonymity and global reach provides comfort in individuals sharing their viewpoints, and as seen in the recent uprisings in the Middle East, can pave the way for mass movements to arise in bringing forth change and connect with likeminded individuals who may not have been given the opportunity to meet otherwise.
What's more, the rise in digital technologies offers immense opportunities for redefining local economies in lesser developed regions. Today, you see the rise in mobile phones changing the way farmers in East Africa determine which crops to bring to market and the price at which they plan to sell. The communications barriers have consequently relaxed and made way for innovation and experimentation.
Yet another example of change as a result of digital technologies' spread is the perceived cultural blending worldwide. Globalisation's effects have meshed languages, cultural norms, consumer likes and dislikes, etc. Some even fear the convergence of culture in response to technology's spread threatens the legacies of indigenous cultural groups and erodes at their continuity.
Kaley Sweeney 16:26, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*****
I believe that one of the most significant changes associated with the Internet is the way people can buy and sell services and products. E-commerce made a complete revolution in the way people do business without any precedence in our history. According to Forrester Research in http://www.wwwmetrics.com/shopping.htm the use of the Internet for shopping has been exponentially increasing. Only in the United States, $248.7 billion online sales are expected by 2014 and 10% more is forecast for the next five years. In Western Europe, online sales are expected to reach approximately 14 billion euros ($155.7 billion) and a growth of 11% percent annually. Another change that is related to e-commerce is the fact that it gives people so many tools in doing their own business that it could trigger the extinction of some markets. For example, travel companies might disappear in the near future because it will be impossible to compete with virtual companies like "Booking.com" or “Expedia”, which have very competitive prices, a wide variety of options and can be quickly and easily operated by anyone without the inconvenience of having to go to a travel agency. In summary, e-commerce is not just a revolution in the way people can buy and sell services and products, but it will be yet a cause of extinction for some traditional markets for which the impacts are still unknown. ([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 16:27, 29 January 2013 (EST))

*********

1) Many digital users believe that all content on the Internet is (or should be) free. What are the costs of a seemingly "free" Internet? Who funds or pays for the Internet?
2) As digital technologies become increasingly significant in daily life, should we work to lessen the digital divide domestically? Internationally?[[User:JW|JW]] 16:39, 29 January 2013 (EST)

*********
We stand at the precipice of a new world. We hold an opportunity to connect with each other and share information like never before possible in human history. Now the question is what do we do with it?

How do we bridge the gap between the new hive mind of the internet and the preexisting societies that surround us?

•“This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different” John Perry Barlow (A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace).

•“ Information wants to be free” (Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

•Ability to organize, discover, exclude and deliver information ( Tim Berners- Lee )

•“ If you want to liberate a society just give them the internet” – Wael Ghonim ( MacKinnon)

How do we protect this opportunity and prevent a “race to the bottom"?

•“I don’t like the outcome of what happens with these things… but we have to follow the law.” Yang ( Yahoo Founder from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

•We need a broader more sustained internet freedom movement and a culture of sustained activism (Rebecca MacKinnon: Let’s take back the internet!)

•Citizen-centric evolution of the internet (Mackinnon)

How do we ensure that all people have access to information and prevent “those in advantageous position” from reaping the benefits of the internet?

•We need to create a society of computer literate people

•Encourage innovation and exploration

•Will language connect or separate us ? On learning English “Because, father, the computer speaks English.” ( Al Gore repeating anecdote from President Akayev of Kyrgyzstan from Jack Goldsmith + Tim Wu: Digital Borders (legal affairs))

By Alybarbour

******

Doug Forbes
Assignment Zero
1 29 13

From the 50’s thought the 60’s there was a communications theorist named Marshal McLuhan. He devoted a lot of thought and writing around the invention of Television, noting that the existence of the medium itself had impact beyond any specific content coming across it. He coined a phrase, “The medium is the massage.” He felt that the ability to bring images of experiences in real time across vast distances would bring an awareness of each others circumstance in an unprecedented way and that cold lead to deeper understanding of one another as people and as countries. He referred to this as a “Global Village” and wrote a book in 1968 that included that phrase in the title. However, by 1964, he had already written in his book “Understanding Media” that the networks of the day were “timid giants,” there position was so important and so visible that they had become very weary of promoting non-mainstream positions because they could so readily create chaotic responses.

Looking at the class readings so far, I’d say that the advent of the Internet made for very similar expectations in, promoting unrestricted speech, moving it across borders and across economic boundaries as well. Barlow’s Declaration of Independence in Cyberspace makes it clear that people felt they had an area of total free speech but unlike our founding fathers, he forgot to shoot the opposition. The most notable change that around the Internet in the readings is that those expectations which seemed almost inevitable to begin with have, to a very large extent not come to fruition. So to me the most important challenges that presents are in achieving some kind of balance in the areas of accessibility, governmental censorship as well as economic censorship.

Taking these in order, Hargittai’s writings on the Digital Divide make it pretty clear that Barlow’s “World that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth,” was wildly optimistic. With third world countries lagging behind, and minorities and the elderly behind as well, those things could be improved on a bit but some of the statistical information has probably been improved on in some areas since his latest stats which are around 2004. In particular India seems to have made very good use of the Internet and related telecommunications technologies to improve their economic status, just call Dell for tech support and you’ll get a good idea. Hargittai also points out that user skill level is crucial to making use of Internet access. Her suggestion that education is around this is perhaps the most important one as we only have so much control over what happens in other countries. The NYC school system has done quite a bit of experimenting with this with very favorable results, as a videographer, I did several video’s that demonstrated very good results when students had access to laptops and also one teacher in particular was big on having younger students use small, relatively affordable tablets, noting that third graders became enthusiastic to do rewrites of papers for the first time. Zickuhr and Smith point out that “Both African Americans and English-speaking Latinos are as likely as whites to own any sort of mobile phone, and are more likely to use their phones for a wider range of activities.” Which may make for an opportunity to flatten the digital divide a bit so that may take care of some of the access point issues in the U.S. but it still remains important to teach our youth to be good searches and Internet savvy, which may not be as easy to accomplish using cell phones.

Regarding Government censorship and control, Goldsmith and Wu point out that while countries such as China may go way to far in their blocking of Internet, countries like Frances’ opposition to a Nazi auction site may be perfectly reasonable given their history and culture and a one size fits all set of laws would not be desirable. The challenge here is very similar to all other media, holding governments to their standards where we can. I must say I thought Google and Yahoo missed on opportunity. Goldsmith and Wu quote Yang of Yahoo as saying, "To be doing business in China, or anywhere else in the world, we have to comply with local law." As proponents of free speech, just deciding that one must operate within the laws of a country like China and at least in Google’s case hoping that they would loosen up a bit by themselves, missed the fact that to be a major world power as the Chinese are clearly achieving, they would have to have a search technology and I think our search engine people could have demanded some reform. Instead they wimped out or got greedy and got hacked in the process. That was part of the challenge the Internet posed and they did not meet that part which is a human as well as political great loss as we might have benefited greatly from some loosening of controls on there part. It’s interesting to note that the ability to censor sites was not even discovered until it was brought into light in the Yahoo/France case. The technology had a built in capability that was discovered by a commercially developed technology.

This leads to the last and greatest challenge of the set, the role commercial censorship of Internet information. This is most challenging in part because our corporations are so pervasive, partly we don’t have a say in their goings on much and partly because as one reading points out, companies are beholden to their share holders and not to the general citizenry and sometimes these appear to conflict, at least in a short term view. MacKinnon has a great example of this in the Julian Assange happenings. Here we have someone very much in the business of providing otherwise hard to obtain information and with no conviction or even start of due process, his provider and I believe also his credit card processors pull out on him. We seem to have the most difficult time coming up with answers to this area of problems, it’s the one way in which the Internet is living up to it’s promise of eluding solutions to control. What would “taking back the Internet” look like? More Government intrusion? That is not always such a good idea and the antithesis of what it’s earlier proponents hoped for. Can you imagine that a company would be required to keep an account with someone who has just published national security secrets? Even if someone discarded the Assange case as an outlier, one is still left with the troubling mechanics of censorship of information by companies and corporations some of whom may be very savvy at Internet manipulation. Hargittai states that censorship or gatekeeping [in this country] is now occurring at the level of information exposure. MacKinnon calls for vigilant activism in keeping the Internet as free as possible, but it is very hard to regulate or in any way control gatekeeping at the level of information exposure. We used to have a fairness in reporting doctrine for the televised press, that was based on running an opposing view to any story, but with billions of pages, this type of legislation provides only a partial solution.

In conclusion, while the Internet may not have lived up to the expectations of proponents such as Barlow, it may still be the closets thing we have to what he envisioned. Of the three challenges discussed, the digital divide may suffer from some Mathew effect, but my sense is that as time goes on, this will lesson, especially here in the U.S. for the reasons discussed above.

Balance in Government regulation will continue to be an issue that we must be aware of and influence where possible as the situation warrants. While we should keep as much freedom as possible, should we really be able to skirt existing laws about background checks and buy six thousand rounds of ammunition in hundred round belts?

Corporate Censorship which mostly takes place at the level of information exposure is very problematic and perhaps can only be combated with counter information exposure. I would say that the Internet does provide a counterbalancing force. Lots of news items and discourse emerge from it, such as those of Matt Drudge, Jullian Assange just to name a couple of the most notable ones. If one really feels strongly about an issue that is buried in reams of digital masking, posting to your social media site, posting to blogs, calling and discussing with friends and colleagues, or, by whatever means is available. As the recent internet and telecommunications involvement in the Arab Spring Uprisings suggest, I believe that the Internet still provides the closest means possible to achieving it’s touted mandate of getting muffled voices heard across as many borders and obstacles as possible and as we think about legislation and control, preservation of that freedom should be paramount.
[[User:Douglas Forbes|Douglas Forbes]] 17:03, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

Looking forward I think that there are a few problems that we can foresee for the rapidly growing and developing, global internet. I think that there are issues which we cannot now foresee, since innovation can surprise us with new unintended consequences. Among the problems that can be foreseen:
1. Expansion of infrastructure while keeping traffic moving free of charge (net neutrality).
2. Security threats and mal-ware.
3. There will continue to arise new social issues that are only present because of the available technology.
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 17:14, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

1) Prior the internet, people were judged on their outward physical appearance, resume and their reactions or attitudes in terms of their likes or dislikes. However, with the increasing consumption of media and technology, people have become inclined to disclose detailed information about themselves, and others, that are virtually permanent and displayed for the whole world to see. People are now represented in new ways, from news articles to their online memberships, all of which could be accessed within seconds. In recent years, the proliferation of popular social networking websites only added to the internet profiling phenomenon. For the first time, people are willingly joining the websites and disclosing easily categorized demographic information, as well as personal preferences and ideas publicly. Arguably, the move towards globalization has never been shown as transparently as in these social networking websites, with members from all over the world. However, the goldmine of information collected in these websites, pose serious privacy issues and implications of a third-party controlling our representations of self. Websites are now essentially "owning representations" of users around the world. What is private to us, is much harder to distinguish. This is an issue, because the courts and legal rights within a country may not be aligned with the ever-changing aspects of the internet.

2) Although there are many negative aspects to the internet world, it is also innovative and "helpful" in terms of gathering data from all the world. What I mean by this is that, programs now have the innovation of millions of users around the world, and can be accessed within seconds. It saves costs, and time: E-commerce, E-mail. The exposure to information is limitless.
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 17:29, 29 January 2013 (EST)

The internet has changed and will continue to change our morals in many regards. On the one hand the proliferation of pornography has made exposure to previously heavily regulated acts much more commonplace for young men, this changes their views of women and relationships. On the other hand, the internet has exposed many in society to ideas and beliefs that they could never have encountered previously (i.e. individuals raised in a strict religious community can now easily gain exposure to those with differing beliefs). It has also increased international trade and broken down economic barriers (ebay now allows you to purchase direct from chinese manufacturers). I am excited to undertake an academic study of the internet with all of you. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 17:35, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******

The Internet has allowed information to flow much more quickly and cheaply between various points on the globe.

Marketing and shopping have been significantly changed by the advents of secure remote transactions and targeted advertising. Potential customers no longer have to be local. In the case of software and media companies, distributing products is especially easy.

Countries are more intertwined than they were previously, thanks to quick informational access to distant places. Borders pose less of a limit on the exchange of cultural information between geographic locations (although things like the Great Firewall of China may curtail this benefit in many cases). Cheap, accessible long-distance communication between friends and family allows social lives to continue despite often being dislocated due to modern nuclear family lifestyles.

Content is often pooled together and ranked preferentially, allowing large quantities of relatively optimized (in the sense of meeting the users expectations more than older means of seeking information) to be rapidly found. Examples include Google indexing and the Reddit karma system. The creation of search engines like Google has allowed people to rapidly find new sources of information, permitting people to be more dynamic in their decision-making. It is no longer as necessary to anticipate every problem you will encounter, or rely on an uninformed solution. On the flip side, motivated cognition may limit or even invert this advantage by causing people to only seek evidence confirming their beliefs. The larger a pool of information, the easier it is to find evidence for any arbitrary viewpoint. Thus, one probable effect of the Internet (albeit difficult to quantify) is that people are now more confident of their beliefs, sometimes even if they’re not true. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 21:43, 29 January 2013 (EST)

******
To understand the present and future of the Internet, one must first understand its past.

The Internet protocols were developed by the Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA) as part of an effort to design a robust communications network. The ARPAnet, which linked together a number of high tech research institutions, was deployed both to demonstrate the workability of the protocols and to facilitate communication among research communities.
I would also present the argument that as the internet goes, so does the need for more social responsibility regarding uses. '''Hunter'''

******

I believe one of the most significant changes in this digital world is the upheaval of the intellectual property world, and i don't see the issue coming to an end any time soon.

The other major change that we are going through now is the different groups and countries around the world fighting digitally for control over the World Wide Web. Fighting for control over it's users, its economic value, and over the content that should and should not be allowed on the current "wild west web".

It will be interesting to see how these world wide issues could/will be solved with so many competing groups around the globe.
[[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 10:30, 30 January 2013 (EST)

******

1) ''Online education'' has changed the way students learn, interact, and absorb new information. Harvard has offered extension classes for more than a century, but online classes are relatively new, altering the educational landscape for students worldwide. The notion of online education has opened new doors for many who would otherwise be excluded from diverse learning institutions, i.e., Harvard. Many students have yet to discover the benefits of online education: recorded lectures, interactive chat sessions with classmates worldwide, skype-like discussions, etc. From my perspective, as a 4th year Extension student, online education represents the future. Children, adolescents, and adults will soon enter the online academic universe, learning from others with unique cultural backgrounds, languages, and global outlooks...it is only the beginning.

2) ''Online fundraising'' has allowed non-profit organizations to blossom and flourish worldwide. For example, in 2004, I founded an NGO in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, dedicated to education and personal development. As the founder, I have been tasked with raising tens of thousands of dollars to keep the organization alive for the past nine years. Online fundraising/giving campaigns have enabled me to reach hundreds of donors quickly, many of whom I have never met. Payment sources such as Paypal and Firstgiving have allowed me to raise funds through a secure streamlined approach. Donors do not need to put a check in the mail; they simple need to enter their credit card information and the funds are routed to an underserved population in the favelas (shanty towns) of Rio de Janeiro. This method of giving--helping underserved communities obtain a better lifestyle--is monumental in the world of NGOs. It has not only changed how people support causes, but it has also brought transparency to so many grassroots movements around the globe. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 16:42, 30 January 2013 (EST)

*********
1. One of the most significant changes to me seems to be the greater access to education for people who might not have the opportunity to access it in a traditional way. Since the internet is available all of the time if a course or training is available via the web then someone can access the information at any time.
2. A significant social change that has cropped up I believe is associated with children’s use of the internet, and how that has affected them and our society. Most children do not understanding the ramification of their actions or laws that pertain to them when they make threats or show provocative pictures of each other on the internet.[[User:Jaronica|Jaronica]] 18:35, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I think there are many significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies, but I'm stating the obvious. I will list a few below:

1) It has opened up global markets for both legal and black market goods to much of the developed world

2) It has allowed communications on an unprecedented scale.

3) It is allowing for almost unchecked observation or spying by companies and governments
on people on businesses. [[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 14:31, 31 January 2013 (EST)

By way of significant changes associated with the internet and digital technologies:

1) It has exposed the glaring fallacy of so-called American exceptionalism by providing access, both legal and illegal, to American institutions like universities and banks.

2) It has altered the neuroplasticity of an entire generation by removing the resilience protective factors afforded by direct human to human verbal and physical contact.

3) In conjunction with recent legislation, it has opened the flood gates to foreign financial influence on U.S. politics.[[User:Getmike|Getmike]] 16:10, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Digital technologies, mostly through the Internet has exponentially expanded the amount and scope of information available as well as equally expanding access to it by those who have heretofore been restricted if not completely shut out from it because of their geographical, social, cultural and political environment. This is the latest advancement in mankind’s knowledge and ability to advance, much as in the past there have been other almost sudden in times of our evolution changes such as the printing press, electricity, advancements in transportation, the telephone and radio and television.
The ability to read and contribute to scientific and other advancements was restricted before the printing press to the privileged elite. The Internet has made economic ability almost insignificant; Electricity removed the obstacle of light and expanded every day precipitously. Advances in telecommunication end much isolation. Digital technological breakthroughs advanced in one fell swoop what it had previously taken centuries to do in all of these other genres. [[User:Rich|Rich]] 09:16, 1 February 2013 (EST)

To keep it balanced, I’m introducing one positive example of digital technologies and one negative.

1. The negative. I know about sexting and cyberbulling, but this week I was appalled learn about online Sexual Shaming. The NPR talk show On Point with Tom Ashbrook had a segment on Cyberbullying and Sexual Shaming (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/28/cyberbullying) which originally aired on Jan. 28, 2013 at 11:00 A.M. It featured an interview with Temitayo Fagbenle, a teenager who has been reporting on this issue for Radio Rookies, on WNYC, New York Public Radio. Apparently, it is very common for boys to post pictures and videos of of girls they’ve had sex with on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. More often than not, the girls didn’t know that these images had been taken. The boys reward each other for doing this by clicking “like” and within minutes the images are spread around the world to hundreds or even thousands of onlookers. But, even worse, boys and especially girls then “shame” the victim by posting scathing remarks about her. Temitayo, the teenage reporter, told about her experiences of trying to get Facebook to take down an image of a naked teenage girl. When she reported the picture to Facebook as harassment, she got a response back that the picture didn’t violate the community standard. But, Facebook community standards say you can’t have explicitly sexual content when minors are involved. She then reported the image again, this time as being pornographic and received a similar message from Facebook. Often there are no repercussions for posting these pictures and videos. School administrators often feel there is nothing they can do if the posting didn’t take place on school grounds. But sometimes schools take the position that it is a criminal matter and if they hear about it, they report it to the authorities.

2. The positive. MOOCS-Massive Open Online Courses. There is plenty of buzz about MOOCS these days. Some people view them as a huge threat to our colleges and universities because they’re giving away knowledge for free when most people are spending thousands of dollars for this knowledge. Others see it as providing educational opportunities to people around the globe who just a couple of years ago could never even dream of taking a course from Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. I recently completed a Stanford Online MOOC, Designing a New Learning Environment (http://venture-lab.org/education). In this course I worked with a team to solve a real-world problem: helping Doctors Without Borders to design a better way to train their staff who were working in the field. Our team brought together instructional designers, educational entrepreneurs, a medical business owner and staff from Doctors without Borders. We were located in California, Massachusetts, England and Spain. While it may have been possible for a team like this to have accomplished the same things if we had been paying $2000 to take a similar online course through Harvard Extension School, the fact that there were thousands of students in the course made it possible for people with similar interests and diverse talents to find each other. But, I think the most compelling aspects of MOOCS is illustrated by the story of Battushig, the Mongolian student who took the MITX class, Circuits and Electronics with a group of his peers when he was 15. He not only received an A in the course, but also got 100% on the final. I heard Anant Agarwal, director of MITx talk about this course and how proud he was of Battushig, especially since the final exam had been designed so that most MIT students would not be able to get 100%. Without this MOOC, students like Battushig would have very little if any opportunity to take, and excel in, a course like this. I’m very excited about the new edX initiative, which is bringing together courses from Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, and the University of Texas. I’ll be watching closely to see how this, and other MOOCS develop.
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 23:39, 1 February 2013 (EST)

I think that the ongoing conversation in the education world over what it means to be "digitally literate" contains embedded within it evidence of many significant changes associated with digital technologies. While an initial basic definition of "digital literacy" might have encompassed only the surface-level processes required to work various technologies (i.e. the button-pushing, the menu-scrolling, the basic how-to), the conversation has quickly evolved into a discussion of what broader skills are necessary for individuals to interact "well" with technology. That is, what different ways of thinking do we need to take advantage of our tools, how do we adapt and how has technology already changed us? Some examples might be 1.) the skill of information synthesis 2.) the skill of working across mediums, both to digest content and to produce it 3.) the skill of replication and remixing 4.) the skill of constant curation, 3.) the skill of time-sensitive analysis and snap recommendation. All of these skills might be behaviors that existed prior to the proliferation of digital technologies for consumer use, but the digital explosion has nevertheless made them explicit, made them ubiquitous, and, arguably, made them necessary, thus changing not only our thinking about education, but also about the skills that we ourselves broadly value, in informal social settings, in the workplace, or elsewhere.
--[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 12:49, 2 February 2013 (EST)

**********
1: Democracy within Internet, I believe it is a significant characteristic within social arena- the freedom of any information. 2 Regulatory issues based on culture; I think it plays an important role within social and political criteria that brings ample diversifications within cultural policy and policymaking criteria. 3 Copyright; as Internet has affected everyone in many areas of their life, it also allows to build resistance of use, regulations and rights between diverse audiences. user777, February 2013