https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Interestingcomments&feedformat=atomTechnologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T06:22:26ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.5https://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Final_Projects&diff=10396Final Projects2013-05-10T21:02:43Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big><br />
<br />
<br />
== Instructions ==<br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or Pseudonym:<br />
*Title:<br />
*Link:<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Submissions ==<br />
*Pseudonym: interestingcomments (Student ID#10789842)<br />
<br />
*Title:Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? <br />
A comparative observational study of two publically traded company message board communities<br />
<br />
*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Interesting_comments_5.10.13TAG_LSTU_Assignment_.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:02, 10 May 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Final_Projects&diff=10395Final Projects2013-05-10T21:00:49Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big><br />
<br />
<br />
== Instructions ==<br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or Pseudonym:<br />
*Title:<br />
*Link:<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Submissions ==</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Final_Projects&diff=10394Final Projects2013-05-10T20:59:10Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big><br />
<br />
<br />
== Instructions ==<br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or Pseudonym:<br />
*Title:<br />
*Link:<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Submissions ==<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: interestingcomments (Student ID 10789842)<br />
Title:Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? <br />
A comparative observational study of two publically traded company message board communities.”<br />
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Interesting_comments_5.10.13TAG_LSTU_Assignment_.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:55, 10 May 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Final_Projects&diff=10392Final Projects2013-05-10T20:55:43Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big><br />
<br />
<br />
== Instructions ==<br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or Pseudonym:<br />
*Title:<br />
*Link:<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Submissions ==<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: interestingcomments (Student ID 10789842)<br />
Title:Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? <br />
A comparative observational study of two publically traded company message board communities.”<br />
Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:5.10.13TAG_LSTU_Assignment_.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:55, 10 May 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Extra_Credit_Submissions&diff=10359Extra Credit Submissions2013-05-07T11:42:51Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
'''This assignment is due on May 7.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 14th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.<br />
<br />
If you do plan on uploading a file, ''please name your file "wikiusername_extracredit," 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 PowerPoint document your file should be named "jdoe_extracredit.ppt."<br />
<br />
Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give. <br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
==Submissions==<br />
<br />
<br />
I would like to participate in the extra credit assignment by sending along a link to an iMovie that will go through "the right to be forgotten" in a narrative format. <br />
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:31, 7 March 2013 (EST)Caroline<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
*Zak Paster_extracredit - Link to extra credit assignment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks5e5KPsWxk&feature=youtube_gdata <br />
*The presentation is on autopilot - I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th. <br />
*This slide show provides an overview of two fast-growing online giving communities - Crowdrise.com Razoo.com - and cross-compares two of Lessig's Internet forces: ''norms and architecture.''<br />
*[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 23:00, 6 May 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*interestingcomments_extracredit (Student ID 10789842)- Link to extra credit assignment: https://vimeo.com/65635250<br />
*I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th. <br />
*This video lecture gives an overview of my research on the topic: Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? A comparative observational study of two publicly traded company message board communities.<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 07:42, 7 May 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Extra_Credit_Submissions&diff=10358Extra Credit Submissions2013-05-07T11:42:33Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
'''This assignment is due on May 7.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 14th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.<br />
<br />
If you do plan on uploading a file, ''please name your file "wikiusername_extracredit," 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 PowerPoint document your file should be named "jdoe_extracredit.ppt."<br />
<br />
Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give. <br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
==Submissions==<br />
<br />
<br />
I would like to participate in the extra credit assignment by sending along a link to an iMovie that will go through "the right to be forgotten" in a narrative format. <br />
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:31, 7 March 2013 (EST)Caroline<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
*Zak Paster_extracredit - Link to extra credit assignment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks5e5KPsWxk&feature=youtube_gdata <br />
*The presentation is on autopilot - I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th. <br />
*This slide show provides an overview of two fast-growing online giving communities - Crowdrise.com Razoo.com - and cross-compares two of Lessig's Internet forces: ''norms and architecture.''<br />
*[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 23:00, 6 May 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*interestingcomments_extracredit (Student ID 10789842)- Link to extra credit assignment: https://vimeo.com/65635250<br />
*I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th. <br />
*This video lecture gives an overview of my research on the topic: Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? A comparative observational study of two publicly traded company message board communities.<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 07:42, 7 May 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_4_Submissions&diff=10260Assignment 4 Submissions2013-04-29T22:45:52Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
'''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). <br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''<br />
<br />
'''If you'd like peer feedback on an updated version of your rough draft, you can submit it here: [[Assignment 4 Peer Review]]'''<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Project title: <br />
*Link to rough draft: (add your link here)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
==Submissions==<br />
<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: sridder<br />
*Project title: Does Social Commerce Reduce Internet Commerce Fraud?<br />
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Steve_Ridder_Assignment_4.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 20:25, 21 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: Dear Alice<br />
Project title: One Company, Different Social Media Platforms, Different Conversations<br />
Link to Draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/DearAlice_Assignment4.docx<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:08, 23 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: Zak Paster<br />
*Project title: Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era<br />
*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<br />
[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 22:41, 24 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
****<br />
*Name: Milena Grado<br />
*Project title: How Does Reclame Aqui Avoid Bias?<br />
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment4milenagrado.doc<br />
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 17:28, 26 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
****<br />
*Name or pseudonym: CyberRalph<br />
*Project title: Anonymous and Their Use of Twitter to Leverage Lessig's Regulators as a Means for Attacking CISPA<br />
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment4.docx<br />
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:46, 28 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
****<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: joshywonder<br />
*Project title: Lawbuzz.ca - Anonymous Forum Participation<br />
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Joshywonder_Assignment_4.docx<br />
[[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 12:05, 29 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: interesting comments<br />
*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<br />
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Z_TAG_LSTU_Assignment_4_(1)_.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:45, 29 April 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Informing_the_Public_in_the_Internet_Age&diff=10205Informing the Public in the Internet Age2013-04-16T19:56:04Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''April 16'''<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [http://transition.fcc.gov/osp/inc-report/INoC-Executive_Summary.pdf Federal Communications Commission, Information Needs of Communities] (read executive summary, skim overview)<br />
<br />
* [http://banyanproject.com/index.php?title=Main_Page Banyan Project, Introduction and Overview]<br />
<br />
* [http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/111660-muckrock-city/ Chris Faraone, MuckRock City (''Boston Phoenix'')]<br />
<br />
* [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'')]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3TRKPSmoZk Brendan Nyhan, Biases Abound] (video, watch all)<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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." <br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
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 <br />
participatory media, terms that are losing value as meaningful distinctions." <br />
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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.'' <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
****<br />
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)<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
It was good to see that this week’s readings touched on issues that are fundamental to good public policy: a strong press, and a public education system that trains a country’s people in, as Jonathan Zitrain put it “ The sets of skills that comprise the western enlightenment”. (1:02:17 to 1:02:34) If newspapers are written above the average level of the high school graduate in a community, it’s not hard to understand why they are not being widely read. However, if the average high school graduate is reading at a 6th grade level, the quality of the press for that city is not going to be high if it is not geared to (as the Banyan Project website puts it) the upscale and elite. Finally the point that FOIA requests and much of the abuses of local and national governments are dependent on investigative journalism and the deep pockets of the organizations that employ them (Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America) is important, but what is also important is a populace who can understand the issues raised in such a story. If the majority of a country’s citizens cannot read and think critically, these stories will be of little use or interest to any other than the upscale. It would also be helpful if the majority of the population were familiar with our type of government (a republic) and the documents it is based upon (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers.) [[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:19, 16 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
***<br />
<br />
Our classes eerily coincide with national news. Through the lens of yesterday's tragedy, these articles have made me consider how both emotional investment and the means through which information is generated influence fact. Brendan Nyhan discusses several psychological factors that determine how individuals delegate truth. For instance, the "Illusion of Truth" phenomena, in which individuals construct truth based upon familiar narratives, particularly resonated with me. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon, threads of suspicion emerged, including accusations against a "darker-skinned or black male" with "a possible foreign accent." Despite the lack of evidence necessary to suspect anyone, the most news-making terrorists to attack America share aesthetic characteristics with this "darker-skinned or black male" with a "possible foreign accent." In the case of the Boston Marathon tragedy, where much uncertainty still remains, we attempt to apply the truth of the past, which foolishly promotes blindness to and over-simplification of our truly ignorant present circumstances. In tandem with our collective social-historical structures, social media and technology enable us to seek and create truth ourselves. Every Facebook status is an op-ed, and every mobile upload is proof. Everyone is a journalist now, yet without the requirement to comply to journalistic principles. Personal blogs may feature publicly meaningful information couched within an author's bias and lack of fact-checking. While the influx of social media reporting allows readers to seeks information from a spectrum of sources,inaccuracy and personal context may taint these writings, and distract from mainstream news outlets (occasional) adherence to journalistic principles. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 14:57, 16 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The readings were interesting but I really enjoyed the lecture by Brendan Nyhan. The biases that exist in today's media is remarkable. No matter what the topic the way the news is reported can influence elections, business transactions, and really everything in our world. These biases and misinformation are crippling without the financial resources to challenge the media flawed content. This allows for much of the momentum and influence to come from the weight of these misstatements and the ability for those who challenge or fight the misinformation to effectively eliminate the inadequacies of the information. An example of this would be if there was a witness who saw a middle eastern man near where the explosion occurred in Boston and then the media attacked the story that this attack was terror related from an Islamic extremist , the media could start to engage in these biases to influence a reaction when in fact there is nothing to substantiate these claims. So it is very interesting on how the media could shape the world with misinformation[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 15:56, 16 April 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Hacking,_Hackers,_and_Hacktivism&diff=10173Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism2013-04-09T14:49:23Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''April 9'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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'')]<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]<br />
<br />
* [http://vimeo.com/46450688 Molly Sauter, Activist DDOS Campaigns: When Similes and Metaphors Fail] (video, watch from to 1:56 to 21:44)<br />
<br />
:* 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].<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sundevil Wikipedia, Operation Sundevil]<br />
<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]<br />
<br />
* [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'')]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Peer_Production:_Development_from_the_Edges_and_from_the_Crowd&diff=10163Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd2013-04-02T19:19:11Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''April 2'''<br />
<br />
Beyond merely providing a forum for political activism, scholars are increasingly aware of the benefits the Internet provides as a mode of production. How can the Internet help us make things together? How much hierarchy and control is needed to produce? How good is the material that peer production creates? And finally, what are the risks to producers (and society) inherent to peer production?<br />
<br />
Our special guest this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhergueux Jérôme Hergueux], a fellow at the Berkman Center, who specializes in behavioral economics and online social spaces. <br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://video.mit.edu/watch/news-information-and-the-wealth-of-networks-9187/ Yochai Benkler, News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (video, watch from 8:32 to 26:07)<br />
<br />
:* if you’re not familiar, you may want to spend a little time looking at Wikipedia’s entry on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti@home Seti@home].<br />
<br />
* [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html James Surowiecki, ''The Wisdom of Crowds''] (read excerpt)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/11/30/cass-sunsteins-infotopia/ Ethan Zuckerman, Review of Cass Sunstein’s “Infotopia”]<br />
<br />
* [http://web.media.mit.edu/~cebrian/p78-tang.pdf John Tang et al, Reflecting on the DARPA Red Balloon Challenge (''Communications of the ACM'')]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJWwLVkKTU Jonathan Zittrain, Minds for Sale] (video, watch all)<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia]<br />
<br />
* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm Eric Von Hippel, ''Democratizing Innovation''] (Chapter 1, focus on pages 1-3 and 13-15, skim rest)<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds" and how it spoke to the potential superiority of aggregated and averaged knowledge. Due to the rise in portable and mobile computing, the internet has provided a fantastic forum for big data to be collected and analyzed. I personally believe that as the world experiences greater globalization and an increased democratic forum for information sharing, we achieve greater solutions. I found the end of the article particularly interesting as the simulated maze/node experiment highlighted the "mob mentality" vs. the average of individual paths. It's quite astonishing that the "mob mentality" path, using the majority's decision at each node, achieved the original solution. I think that the growth in crowdsourcing and big data will become a huge focal point and resource for research over the next 10 to 15 years. In contrast, I thought Zuckerman's "My Heart's in Accra" brought up various thought provoking questions regarding ideological cocooning. However, I think the chief undermining piece to his study is that most individuals do not belong to only one blog. And if the study were to be done on aggregators of multiple blogs, than I believe different questions and concerns may have been raised or alleviated. I am a big fan of aggregated analysis like macroeconomic market bets. After all it was this philosophy and mentality that gave George Soros his fortune. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 15:39, 1 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
The notion of crowdsourcing is an interesting phenomenon in the current digital era, shedding light on an important question: ''what does the future behold?'' <br />
<br />
Zittrain’s lecture was great! I liked hearing about new virtual work methodologies, some of which I hadn't been exposed to in the past. Whether working online to take orders for a fast food restaurant thousands of miles away, adding comments to blogs, or turking via Amazon’s platform, each Internet employment activity is unique. As I watched Zittrain’s lecture and read the articles this week, I couldn't help but think about the future, 25 years from now. The ideas, approaches, and practices outlined in our readings/videos were considered science-fiction when my parents were children; and will most likely be seen as archaic when my children look back on today. That said, our lives not only revolve around technology, but it’s challenging to comprehend where technology will be decades from now. For example, working from home is common for people worldwide, but before the Internet it was a far-reaching reality. <br />
<br />
The idea of crowdsourcing and its relationship to teamwork is also an interesting concept to consider. Teamwork usually means working together as a cohesive group, whether virtual or in-person, driving toward a specific goal. However, based on the readings, teamwork may be evolving in which people share thoughts and ideas separately, in-line with a common end, but not necessarily working together. The maze and jellybean examples from [[The Wisdom of Crowds]] show how puzzles can be solved when the average response is calculated. However, in neither example were the groups working together, yet the majority train-of-thought led to the most streamlined/correct answer. What do others think about this model? People’s minds may work alike to solve a given problem, but not necessarily when working cohesively. ''"[Social networks] have enabled crowdsourcing—aggregating bits of information across a large number of users to create productive value—as a popular mechanism for creating encyclopedias of information (such as Wikipedia) and solving other highly distributed problems"'' (Tang et al., 78). Has teamwork improved due to crowdsourcing, has it declined, or is this simply another form of teamwork?<br />
<br />
Zittrain concluded his lecture on a perfect note—the future surrounding online communication is unknown, because creativity is always changing. Many of the concepts he set forth are ever-evolving in a similar manner: human intelligence, mechanical turking and associated incentives, obtaining online elite status (e.g., Yelp/Trip Advisor elites), and freely engaging in open-source communication leads to countless possibilities. His ending statement about opportunity costs is a final point to consider: now that we can accomplish things 24/7 (online), what other attributes in life are scarified? Furthermore, as production increases through online means, what future attributes will be scarified?<br />
<br />
I look forward to hearing your thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:09, 2 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
I found this information this week much more informative than the week before, and judging by my participation grade, there is some things for me to learn. Here is what this lesson taught me: there is such thing as phishing and internet piracy, and that this has much to do with the idea of intellectual property. This may seem useless but I realized, context is important before history. Historical materialism, as I witnessed within this homework was contra-ed by a more verbal "oral history". These two platforms were at odds.<br />
<br />
Now, most of the people seemed to have Apple computers in these lectures and the doubt that arises is due to the actual machine program they were running. I am in no position to directly quote or to recollect the idea that maybe Steve Jobs was the problem.<br />
<br />
With regard to the overall lecture I found the timing on the final video, categorically, "top to bottom", to have a time lapse, as I had expected but now just realized then before.<br />
<br />
So overall, these are some ideas I have to raise my score from a 1 on my proposal to maybe something average or less radical, because, maybe average is not always "regression to the mean".13:14, 2 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
The readings for this week were some of the more interesting readings to date in my opinion.<br />
<br />
When watching the Yochai Benkler video, the security implications inherent in crowd sourcing came to mind. While some of the efforts he discussed, such as SETI, for example, were non-controversial and would probably be able to function effectively as the general public is included without any security or authentication, I could not help but think about what might happen when the public was invited to support more controversial efforts. Benkler specifically discussed decentralized computation, storage and communications, but what happens when someone whose agenda conflicts with such an effort actively participates in it only to attempt to sabotage it. My guess is that, when it comes to controversial efforts, there will likely have to be some sort of tradeoff between full invited participation (i.e. what Benkler referred to as production without exclusion) and security. There will likely have to be some sort of pre-participation vetting process, a process for vetted and approved participants to authenticate themselves as they participate and additional security measures to ensure communication, computation and storage of information maintains the desired and acceptable level of integrity.<br />
<br />
It's interesting to note how the opinions in today's readings/videos seemed to overlap to a degree with both ends of the (American) political spectrum. Much of Yochai Benkler's talk as well as James Surowiecki's article seemed to imply that the power of people collectively can potentially yield greater results than that of individuals. Another way of summarizing the argument is the old adage that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. This seems to overlap well with modern left-wing economic thinking. However, the Ethan Zuckerman article referenced Cass Sunstein's support of the 20th century economist, Friedrich Hayek, who was a proponent of free markets and individualism. <br />
<br />
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 13:35, 2 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Jonathan Zittrain's talk, which highlighted some of the potential dark sides to peer production and mechanical turk. It seems to me the problems that peer networks excel at are those that require a lot of small, easy inputs from a lot of people. The advantage to this structure is that you can accomplish quite a lot if everyone contributes. The concern is that individuals can be manipulated through points and monetary rewards.(I'm excited to hear Jerome talk about behavioral economics in this regard.) People can perform trivial tasks without knowing the full picture or how the intermediary will use the information. But if they can get a nominal reward for minimal effort, who cares? In some sense, then, peer production enables the production of something that individuals may not even be privy to. <br />
<br />
The implications to this mechanical turk process are important because it could potentially combine the talents of both humans and machines. We worry about automated machines taking our jobs in the economy. But machines can't do everything. They can't recognize an image of a person. They don't have emotional intelligence and they can't understand the nuance of colloquial language. But if you can combine their algorithmic knowledge with human computing, humans performing certain functions for machines, you could create a powerful and dangerous force indeed. Peer networks might be great for collective intelligence, but what happens when government and commercial actors try to leverage that collective intelligence for their own benefits and not the benefits of the crowd? [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 13:55, 2 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
****<br />
I was somewhat troubled by Jonathan Zitrain's opening "You can get strangers to do things that are helpful to your cause without having to pay them." As I watched the video an unspoken theme in much of the experiments that did not involve money was people using the tasks to escape what they should be doing. I'm wondering if that is important to getting someone to do something helpful to your cause - that it be some sort of interruption from their routine or to do list And that the complete statement is people love badges and points when they provide a distraction. Because aren't grades and class rank a version of points and badges? And yet they aren't sufficient to keep people in school. I'm wondering if it's the evaluative piece? Is it necessary that the badges and points have an element of play or provide a feeling of well-being, of "I've done something good" for them to work? Perhaps it is enough that they are impersonal?<br />
In many of the examples, people seemed to be doing the tasks rather than taking actions to improve their own condition. Some of the tasks did have a bit of a "Let's make the world better" feel: Gov. Rick Perry's border webcams arguably improve the lives of the people living in TX border towns and the Internet Eyes seems to fight crime. But some of the others, Waiting for Godot for example, did not. And so many of the participants came from .edu addresses that a 20 hour limit had to be put on participants with those addresses participation. Points and badges seem to be useful tools, but not sufficient to increase civic engagement or have people take the steps that have long term positives but short term negatives: using more calories than one takes in; saving for retirement; preparing for a disaster; taking the time to shop and prepare real food rather than eating processed food or take-out; staying informed about civic matters such that your vote is informed by data rather than political advertising or party affiliation. As someone who has done much work with volunteers on a (fairly large) city-wide basis as well as within companies and universities, motivating people to take actions either as one-offs or repeatedly over time even on issues they say they care about is difficult. And it seems to me that these steps in the Zitrain video may work if the effort is minimal and short term, but I'd like to see how they could work on issues that involve repeated action overtime. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:57, 2 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The video of Yochai Benkler was very insightful and I really enjoy how he conveys his message. Throughout his discussion I continually related what he was saying to my professional industry in the investment markets. His discussion on how the economics had changed significantly in the 1800's to give a greater cost to participate in circulating ideas and how this has impacted the world and the relationships between the provider and the consumer. This implementation of change and change in technology specifically has alter how the economics of how companies are run on Wall Street and around the world. <br />
<br />
In today's globalized connected world, he made an argument that could be interpreted as coming full circle. The access of the internet around the world has allowed for a shift for decentralization and therefore a lower cost to participate in the information movement. With this change society has come full circle in how it utilizes information, how its distributed, how its values this information and how it is used. This distribution through several platforms of communication, allows for behaviors to adapt and create a paradigm shift. This is what raises the red flag politically for those in power to try to attempt to limit the evenly dispersed power and access to information, to maintain a strong hold on power. I find these topics very interesting and the lecturer always a pleasure to listen to. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 15:19, 2 April 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_3_Submissions&diff=10079Assignment 3 Submissions2013-03-26T13:54:53Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym:<br />
*Description:<br />
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Submission Instructions==<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Description: <br />
*Link to your outline: <br />
<br />
Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:<br />
<pre><br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
If used properly you should see the following:<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}<br />
<br />
You may also use some new templates for comments and responses. <br />
<br />
<pre><br />
{{Comment|type your comment here}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}<br />
<br />
You can enter a response in a similar way:<br />
<pre><br />
{{Response|type your response here}}<br />
</pre><br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}<br />
<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
==Submissions==<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment3.pdf}}<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Milenagrado|How does Reclame Aqui avoid bias?|<br />
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)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|RichCacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Users and Restrictions of Free Speech|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hypocritical_or_Sincere_Users_and_Restrictions_of_Free_Speech.pdf}}<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:12, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Maria Jurado|Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Jurado_Assignment3.pdf}} --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 09:16, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
{{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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_3_Submissions&diff=10078Assignment 3 Submissions2013-03-26T13:54:26Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submission Instructions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym:<br />
*Description:<br />
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Submission Instructions==<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Description: <br />
*Link to your outline: <br />
<br />
Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:<br />
<pre><br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
If used properly you should see the following:<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}<br />
<br />
You may also use some new templates for comments and responses. <br />
<br />
<pre><br />
{{Comment|type your comment here}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}<br />
<br />
You can enter a response in a similar way:<br />
<pre><br />
{{Response|type your response here}}<br />
</pre><br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}<br />
<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
==Submissions==<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment3.pdf}}<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Milenagrado|How does Reclame Aqui avoid bias?|<br />
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)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|RichCacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Users and Restrictions of Free Speech|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hypocritical_or_Sincere_Users_and_Restrictions_of_Free_Speech.pdf}}<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:12, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Maria Jurado|Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Jurado_Assignment3.pdf}} --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 09:16, 26 March 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_3_Submissions&diff=10077Assignment 3 Submissions2013-03-26T13:53:47Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym:<br />
*Description:<br />
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Submission Instructions==<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Description: <br />
*Link to your outline: <br />
<br />
Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:<br />
<pre><br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
If used properly you should see the following:<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}<br />
<br />
You may also use some new templates for comments and responses. <br />
<br />
<pre><br />
{{Comment|type your comment here}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}<br />
<br />
You can enter a response in a similar way:<br />
<pre><br />
{{Response|type your response here}}<br />
</pre><br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}<br />
<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: TAG Interesting Comments <br />
*Description: Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?<br />
*Link to your outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:TAG_LSTU_Assignment_3.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:49, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
{{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}}<br />
<br />
==Submissions==<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment3.pdf}}<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Milenagrado|How does Reclame Aqui avoid bias?|<br />
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)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|RichCacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Users and Restrictions of Free Speech|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hypocritical_or_Sincere_Users_and_Restrictions_of_Free_Speech.pdf}}<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:12, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Maria Jurado|Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Jurado_Assignment3.pdf}} --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 09:16, 26 March 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_3_Submissions&diff=10076Assignment 3 Submissions2013-03-26T13:52:33Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submission Instructions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym:<br />
*Description:<br />
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Submission Instructions==<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Description: <br />
*Link to your outline: <br />
<br />
Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:<br />
<pre><br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
If used properly you should see the following:<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}<br />
<br />
You may also use some new templates for comments and responses. <br />
<br />
<pre><br />
{{Comment|type your comment here}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}<br />
<br />
You can enter a response in a similar way:<br />
<pre><br />
{{Response|type your response here}}<br />
</pre><br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}<br />
<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: TAG Interesting Comments <br />
*Description: Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?<br />
*Link to your outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:TAG_LSTU_Assignment_3.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:49, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
{{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}}<br />
<br />
==Submissions==<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment3.pdf}}<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Milenagrado|How does Reclame Aqui avoid bias?|<br />
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)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|RichCacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Users and Restrictions of Free Speech|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hypocritical_or_Sincere_Users_and_Restrictions_of_Free_Speech.pdf}}<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:12, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Maria Jurado|Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Jurado_Assignment3.pdf}} --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 09:16, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Name or pseudonym: TAG Interesting Comments<br />
Description: “ Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?”<br />
Link to your outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:TAG_LSTU_Assignment_3.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:50, 26 March 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_3_Submissions&diff=10075Assignment 3 Submissions2013-03-26T13:50:14Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym:<br />
*Description:<br />
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Submission Instructions==<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Description: <br />
*Link to your outline: <br />
<br />
Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:<br />
<pre><br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
If used properly you should see the following:<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}<br />
<br />
You may also use some new templates for comments and responses. <br />
<br />
<pre><br />
{{Comment|type your comment here}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}<br />
<br />
You can enter a response in a similar way:<br />
<pre><br />
{{Response|type your response here}}<br />
</pre><br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}<br />
<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: TAG Interesting Comments <br />
*Description: “ Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?”<br />
*Link to your outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:TAG_LSTU_Assignment_3.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:49, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Submissions==<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment3.pdf}}<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Milenagrado|How does Reclame Aqui avoid bias?|<br />
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)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|RichCacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Users and Restrictions of Free Speech|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hypocritical_or_Sincere_Users_and_Restrictions_of_Free_Speech.pdf}}<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:12, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Maria Jurado|Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Jurado_Assignment3.pdf}} --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 09:16, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Name or pseudonym: TAG Interesting Comments<br />
Description: “ Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?”<br />
Link to your outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:TAG_LSTU_Assignment_3.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:50, 26 March 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_3_Submissions&diff=10073Assignment 3 Submissions2013-03-26T13:49:34Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submission Instructions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''<br />
<br />
Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym:<br />
*Description:<br />
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Submission Instructions==<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Description: <br />
*Link to your outline: <br />
<br />
Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:<br />
<pre><br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
If used properly you should see the following:<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}<br />
<br />
You may also use some new templates for comments and responses. <br />
<br />
<pre><br />
{{Comment|type your comment here}}<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}<br />
<br />
You can enter a response in a similar way:<br />
<pre><br />
{{Response|type your response here}}<br />
</pre><br />
Should look like:<br />
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}<br />
<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: TAG Interesting Comments <br />
*Description: “ Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?”<br />
*Link to your outline: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:TAG_LSTU_Assignment_3.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 09:49, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Submissions==<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment3.pdf}}<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Milenagrado|How does Reclame Aqui avoid bias?|<br />
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)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|RichCacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Users and Restrictions of Free Speech|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hypocritical_or_Sincere_Users_and_Restrictions_of_Free_Speech.pdf}}<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:12, 26 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
{{AssignmentInfo|Maria Jurado|Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!|<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Jurado_Assignment3.pdf}} --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 09:16, 26 March 2013 (EDT)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Collective_Action,_Politics,_and_Protests&diff=10062Collective Action, Politics, and Protests2013-03-26T09:40:08Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''March 26'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Assignments ==<br />
<br />
As a reminder, [[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due ''before class'' today. You can submit that assignment [[Assignment 3 Submissions|here]].<br />
<br />
== Readings/Watchings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNP9f8geCWA Yochai Benkler, SOPA/PIPA: A Case Study in Networked Discourse and Activism] (approx. 16 mins., watch all)<br />
<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.thenation.com/article/new-study-liberals-more-open-conservatives-online%23 Ari Melber, New Study: Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]<br />
<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
* [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”)<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
experiences as a political scientist and criminal and constitutional trial and appellate lawyer.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 13:05, 13 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Copyright_Part_1:_Guiding_Principles_and_Online_Application&diff=10040Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application2013-03-12T21:15:17Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''March 5'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
'''[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-03-05-Copyright1.pdf Download slides for this week's class.]'''<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Assignments ==<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
== Readings/Watchings ==<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* 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]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
===Links From Adobe Connect Class Session===<br />
Letters patent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent<br />
<br />
Worshipful company of stationers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers<br />
<br />
Press Act 1662: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662<br />
<br />
Statute of Anne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne<br />
<br />
First book published in america (in harvard square): "The Whole Booke of Psalmes FaithfullyTranslated into English Metre." http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm004.html<br />
<br />
This American Life on Coca Cola's Recipe: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/427/original-recipe<br />
<br />
The monkey that stole the camera from a professional photographer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html<br />
<br />
There can be copyright interests in architectural works, but generally they wouldn't protect against photography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture<br />
<br />
The Mona Lisa with moustache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.<br />
<br />
On copyright duration and when different works fall into the public domain: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm<br />
<br />
Fair Use provision in the Copyright Act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107<br />
<br />
Amazon 1984 story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0<br />
<br />
There was a lawsuit over the Amazon-1984 dustup: http://www.pcworld.com/article/172953/amazon_kindle_1984_lawsuit.html<br />
<br />
Terry Fisher's site with his copyright class: http://tfisher.org/<br />
<br />
Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/<br />
===Other Links===<br />
The gloss we're doing in class on the duration of 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].<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Josh. I'm not sure if Sanchez meant to take on the second question as to how much damage is caused to the American economy by piracy. As to the "$12" discussion you mentioned, I agree that Sanchez is being a bit too fast and loose here, but I think what he is driving at is more macroscopic: that the presence of downloading for consumption of works doesn't have a substantial impact on the discretionary spending budgeted by citizens in America – the same amount of money is being spent, it is just being reallocated. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I do know that studies that have looked at the microeconomic dimension of that – that is, whether each download should be valued as a lost sale – have suggested largely that it does not. Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf have the [http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/ec106/strumpf.pdf most famous examination on point] (and their study has [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014399 its critics]), but other studies done by [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21view.html?_r=4& Wharton] and others have reinforced the general point. My point in including in today's reading was not to suggest that the RIAA is wrong and that Sanchez is right; it is rather to highlight the fact that we are trying to legislate in an area that is famous for a lot of hyperbolic talk and little empirical analysis. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 12:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Andy - That's useful background. I do believe Joshywonder's point is an important one. Having lived in a country (briefly) in which powerful anti-U.S. forces are a component of the government, and frequently finding U.S. movies on the street with sophisticated packaging materials for @$1, it was hard not to come to the conclusion that a little bit of economic warfare was occurring. People used their (hard to get) European student and travel visas for copious copying of US programming and would distribute these free among friends (think in terms of hours or days of constant downloading and in terms of multiple seasons of multiple TV shows), and you could understand why they were willing to do this because US programming was expensive to get and came from outside this country, and also because US movies and TV shows purchased legally were insanely expensive. Most of us living there on US salaries and with housing and food subsidies were living quite well, but when I went to legally purchase a movie as a gift, I was astonished at the cost (close to $30 US dollars).<br />
::[[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:14, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::And of course, you don't even have to go to overseas to see US movies on the street for $1. [http://piracy.americanassembly.org/the-report/ The Social Science Research Council] did a deep dig into it in 2011 and found that the rampant piracy in many countries is attributable to a few different factors, but principally what you flagged: a lack of antipiracy education and the overwhelmingly high cost of local legal alternatives. I would also be remiss not to mention that America's longstanding legacy in the international community was as pirates ourselves – we were very, very slow to recognize international copyright standards (over 100 years late in joining the Berne Convention), and used [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_clause all sorts of legal tricks] to inject foreign works into the public domain here. As small anecdotal example, Charles Dickens [http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/pva75.html very famously railed] against the lack of copyright protection of his works in the United States. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 14:50, 5 March 2013 (EST) <br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
Aaron you have brought up some important discussion points with your comments. I worked closely analyzing a company Global Crossings (GBLX on the NASDAQ) in the 90's. This company tried to attempt what you are speaking about. They attempted to lay the fiber optic cables throughout the world. Then they hit a road block with the oceans. How can you go and lay cables across the sea, let alone send someone down miles to repair the wire damage caused from a number of issues that arise? This is why the company went out of business. Government subsidies is many people's answer to fund projects. The truth in funding ventures is the market determines what is worth funding or not. Depending on politicians with really no business experience to make the decisions on what to and what not to fund is the problem and has put us in the debt we are currently engulfed in. I am in agreement with you that the copyright issue will become a major debate as technology expands. It will definitely be interesting to watch not only domestically but globally on the ramifications of challenging this IP in the future.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:57, 12 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject: <br />
<br />
Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/<br />
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
The prosecution of You Tube videos when a "performance" is uploaded of a toddler dancing to a pop music hit seems to me to be self-defeating and more in the sphere of 20th century thinking, such as when the music industry flailed about trying to stop digital downloads of their music. Times change, and the intellectual property laws that were lobbied for at one time and passed must be re-thought in the digital age. Needless to say, other countries around the world mercilessly copy and sell material such as DVD's of movies and music. This is nothing new, and it has not stopped. Clothing is copied in the same manner. Prosecuting citizens of your own country for enthusiatically promoting a brand for free on You Tube or anywhere else on social media or in person at a non-profit exhibition, or even for profit in a cover performance is to me the worse excess of over regulation. Performers can make money off of live performance instead of through digital sales. A copy of clothing is not the real thing, and those who can afford the real thing would never wear a copy, such as a Rolex on the corner. The customer base is grown through copies, not diminished. The global economy solves that problem. When corporations and laws focus on free trade in the global market and seek their profit points from live performance and pushing related items such as digital memberships for exclusive content, and interaction with the performers and creators of the art, intellectual property law will no longer be grasping at straws attempting to regulate across national lines into another country and have when that fails, go after their own fan base! Profit centers change, and in the digital age regulation and control have a place, but are not a replacement for the free market and competition that is able to flourish on world stage. <br />
<br />
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 13:15, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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. <br />
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Wikipedia gave a brief and general description of the Copyright clause of the US Constitution, the history and origin of the copyright language and its effects. I've come to expect a bit more out of the Wikipedia community and was a bit surprised that there wasn't more content on it, especially considering the controversial nature of copyright laws.<br />
<br />
The first six minutes of the Lessig speech and his first point - the elephant in the room - seemed to me to neglect the idea that while the Internet is a place where massive amount of information is available virtually, the same information is still available through more traditional means and in physical form. This point is important because much of the world has access to traditional (i.e. pre-online) access to information and do not need to violate copyright law in order to access it. The counterpoint to my point would obviously be that much of the world does not have access to traditional forms of information and the Internet is their best and only means to obtain such information. However, I think it remains important to point out that convenience should not be a justification, in and of itself, to tear down copyright laws.<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, I struggle to understand the perspective those who are hostile towards the very existence of any copyright law. Copyright law protects the motivation and incentive for profit-seeking institutions to create and help advance the world by offering more choices, whether the purposes of their products or services are educational, entertainment, scientific or other purposes. It is true that those with altruistic motivations (i.e. those who create for the purposes of the proverbial "greater good" of society or the world) can and have made major contributions, but to ignore the value in protecting intellectual property of profit-seekers and those who want to protect what they create for any other purposes, will remove the incentive for a massive portion of the creative world to continue to produce.<br />
<br />
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:53, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, Ralph. If you're still hungry for more reading about the Copyright Clause and its history, I would strongly recommend Dotan Oliar's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ip/oliar_ipclause.pdf The Origins and Meanings of the Intellectual Property Clause]. His is probably the leader in the space about what was going on in the Framers' minds when the clause was drafted. And I wouldn't presume to speak for Lessig, but he has been rather insistent throughout all of his scholarship that he is not a copyright abolitionist. The question for him (and for me, and for many, many legal scholars out there) is not the whether, but the how – what is the appropriate calibration of rights and limitations that would afford authors sufficient (and appropriate) compensation for their works, while also allowing the general public sufficient freedom to expand and build upon existing works in order to further our scientific and artistic progress.[[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Ralph what are your thoughts on creating a universal international copyright law? The problem with copyright law is if you establish a copyright or IP in the US, Australia, and the EU and then someone in Korea is infringing on that copyright there is really little you can do. The entity infringing is usually a shell company that can be closed or shifted to another jurisdiction. Until these loopholes are closed with the use of multi layered corporate structures and registered agents it will be tough to make copyright law have the weight that it really needs to have in this 21st century shared IP world. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:15, 12 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
This week at the computer was pure ecstasy. I love the articles that we read for class and the informative nature of this material. The copyright problem as exasperated with the current issues is probably the most interesting thing ever. So, when I went to that site called Creative Commons, I felt like the world was lifted off by back. I sat in front of my computer and was elated. Then, I realized that the articles listed there were open copyright copyrights and basically send up the idea that the whole situation there is just about as fabulous as a Project Runway show where intelligent designers get their ideas stolen by people with more intellectual capital. So regardless as this is, the differing platforms and the differing modes of media interpretation, show how people online can steal eachother's ideas, even if not the spellcheck. So this weeks readings left me in a tizzy about lecture today and I know that regardless of this exoneration of say, multiple cycles of cyclical group therapy, aka communism, that the internet is certainly a place I will continue to play on for years to come. Thank you for you time. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
I thought this was a good basic overview of copyright law and the Creative Commons license. However I would have liked a bit more background (thanks for providing the link) on current copyright law, and a bit more critique on the Creative Commons licenses. I found a Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons, on the Creative Commons license that contained some links to critical voices. I also found a paper that went a bit into who is using the licenses and how they are using them herehttp://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol4-1/coates.asp. The author of the article, Jessica Coates, was the Project Manager at the Creative Commons Clinic at Queensland University of Technology at the time the paper was written. The Creative Commons website contains a list of articles here:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Scholarship_and_critique_regarding_Creative_Commons<br />
<br />
According to the Creative Commons website, this is the current breakdown of usage, charts are available on the site. See the site for how the data was gathered and the caveats on usage) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_statistics<br />
"These charts show a breakdown of the types of licenses deployed and the properties of deployed licenses, based on Yahoo! queries as of 2006-06-13. (As above the Google API is now superior for an aggregate count, but Yahoo link: searches are superior for measuring the relative deployment of specific licenses and thus specific license types.)"<br />
<br />
by: 96.6%<br />
<br />
nc: 67.5%<br />
<br />
nd: 24.3%<br />
<br />
sa: 45.4%<br />
<br />
Finally, knowing little more about current copyright law and use then can be found in this class and in the media, one of the critiques mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Creative Commons had me wanting to know more:<br />
<br />
"Péter Benjamin Tóth asserts that Creative Commons' objectives are already well served by the current copyright system, and that Creative Commons' "some rights reserved" slogan, as opposed to the "all rights reserved" principle, creates a false dichotomy. "Copyright provides a list of exclusive rights to the rightholder, from which he decides which ones he wishes to 'sell' or grant and which to retain. The 'some rights reserved' concept is therefore not an alternative to, but rather the very nature of classical copyright." The link for this quote is here:^ Tóth, Péter Benjamin (2009). Creative Humbug. Indicare Project http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=118<br />
<br />
I suppose the response to this argument is that one would have to track the creator down and request permission for use, whereas the Creative Commons license allows this info to be embedded by machine language and carried across the web with the material, but without digging into the articles on the Creative Commons website and elsewhere on the web, I really don't know enough (and obviously, I'd like to) to have an opinion on whether or not the Creative Commons licenses are truly a solution to the problem to which tonight's readings point.<br />
<br />
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for sharing that, Raven. We will (time permitting) be digging into the limitations of the Creative Commons solutions tonight, but I do appreciate you flagging them here as well. More criticism can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons#Criticism here]. I'd note that much of the modern criticism around Creative Commons (especially as version 4.0 of the licenses is soon to be deployed) is not based on the premise, but on the execution – wondering whether and to what extent the licenses may develop inconsistencies or may be incompatible with other open source licenses (such as the GNU FSF or MIT licenses). My response to Tóth would begin with what you flagged already – that it would be impossible to actually track down each specific user to secure the rights to do many things online. Tóth is correct that the rights granted under copyright (for the most part) are optionally enforceable, but there's a big difference in execution between deciding whether to exercise that option in the moment and communicating to the world that you can use this affirmatively. As to whether it "erodes" copyright, another popular criticism, perhaps most famously brought by ASCAP, I personally don't find much credence in it. Creative Commons very much depends on copyright in order to work, as enforcement for violation of a CC term (e.g., using CC-BY-NC works for commercial purposes, or CC-BY works without attribution) would be an action for copyright infringement. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Katzer only major US case addressing open licenses] used this to find liability for violation of the GNU GPL. And by empowering authors to decide for themselves work-by-work the fundamental choice remains with the party who – as Tóth said – is empowered always under copyright law to make the choice. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
As a nonphysical and interactive medium, the internet alters concepts of ownership, reproduction, and exchange. On the internet, people can can claim others' media and ideas much more subtly than in the physical world. Technologies that aggregate massive amounts of content, such as Google and Wikipedia, strip owners of control over their work . As Lessig argues, the internet has changed the way we interact with out culture, and thus, necessitated revision of how culture creators establish ownership. While less prohibitive licenses such as the Creative Commons have developed, these new terms of ownership do not mitigate the disconnect between content creators and online users/viewers. Not just copyright law must change, but also internet users' awareness of copyright law in of online work they hope to use. On the creators end, while uploading content, they should be able to designate copyright preferences. At the user endpoints, perhaps web browsers could have a feature that allows users to view the specified copyright of web content elements, similar to the web inspector tool. If there were more apparent ways for users and creators to interact with copyright, I wonder whether this would constrain accessibility to and sharing of information. EDIT: Well, just learned in class that this search function with meta-tags does indeed exist! Cool. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 13:17, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
Lessig's article is an illustration of the aggressive silliness of intellectual property laws in the age of arbitrary replication. The conference by the state of monopolies on the creations of its citizens imputes a kind of religious reverence for intellectual labor as such that is totally unwarranted, particularly in view of the particular technical characteristics of the Internet. UMG is no more responsible for the existence of its artists' works than was James Joyce for the authorship of Ulysses; as cultural products, both represent the final outputs of endlessly old systems of replication, deletion, and signification between people and institutions. The notion that "creators" are imbued with particular rights and prerogatives on account of their proximity and behavioral involvement in cultural inventions promotes a peculiar brand of neurologically illiterate creationism.<br />
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:25, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
Lessig's article very much reminded me of a peice written by Adam Ludwin, venture capitalist focused on early stage finacing. The article is entiled The Age of the Meme (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/09/the-age-of-the-meme/ ) In it he writes "We are an always-on culture now. Social networks have reached critical mass. Inexpensive tools for creating and remixing content have been widely adopted. Our collective consciousness has come online. The intelligence in the system is now coming from below, not above. The sage on the stage is no more. And our collective mind is pumping out memes that are shaping every conceivable domain" We're creating culture from the bottom up not the top-down. The hive mind cycles through and collects inofrmation and spits out new beats of culture faster than any design firm or ad agency ever could These peices which " go viral;" have a histroy un to their own. Cultural relevence for fleeting and passing moments. Who do these artifacts eally belong to? Is an image when captured by the hive mind still the property of its owner? How about a piece of music sampled in a youtube clip? Do the owners of Grumpy Cat own the image of grumpy cat? At what point does surrendering something to the internet mean giving it up as celebrities give up some of their writes as private individuals when entering the spotlight? The internet after all is a giant copying machine. Lessig talks about unintended casualties. I hope our freedom to create, rehash, redesign, copy paste, delete, morph, mash isn't one of them. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
Here is pic of the monkey that hi-jacked the camera!<br />
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FahGRKZ6vL4/T51NeFxZPII/AAAAAAAATXk/quOXJ0_NtEQ/s1600/pic.jpg<br />
<br />
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 18:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
The issue of copyright, free speech and so many of the issues on the Internet create a conflict between OUR national mores, ethics, morals and laws and the rest of the world. We continue to be an imperialistic nation, but the net has given everyone equal power as military size, strength and resolve is no longer a benefit or detriment. Everyone, every country can have its say.<br />
<br />
The Internet has become a tug of war between the so-called democratic nations like the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan and the closed societies, China, the Arab world, South American and African dictatorships, and still in many ways Russia. The leader of China in the 1990's stated that when opening a window to let the frssh air in resulting in some flies entering. The Internet is the Information Highway, and these closed societies look at information as the enemy. They rule by segregation, ignorance of the populous, lack of free thought and fear. Free speech is free thought and will upset their apple cart.<br />
<br />
We need to be able to communicate than force our values on others. We do not have unlimited free speech, but only enough free speech to allow actions and thoughts that do not interfere with the way the leaders decide their people will act. Obscenity, defamation, insurgency laws limit free speech. So do national and religious interests. Today many informational Internet sites charge fees, some exobitant. Others require registration, exchanging access for information. All of these restrict free speech.<br />
<br />
Our Intellectual Property laws are also limitations on free speech. The concept behind intellectual property protections are two-fold: (1) To encourage new thoughts and the advancement of the culture as to the arts and sciences in the society, and (2) To compensate those whose hard word resulted in novel ideas, thoughts and inventions ... without with there is little incentive to create new things.<br />
<br />
I have used Wikipedia for years, but when I began Assignment1 and was directed not to include any essays that contained original research. I contributed a second article independent of the one I did for the class. It was about the second old road bridge in the United States that has been buried intact for 140 years. It is a great historical treasure here in NJ where it is the oldest bridge. I was able to confirm its status both nationally and in NJ but reviewing many bridge databases, along with submissions for listings and listings on the National Register of Historic Places. My efforts were rejected with the rational that since no one else ever wrote about this bridge and Wiki is a site that only edits existing published information, there was no place on it for my efforts. And, they have vague standards what is published and what publishers are allowed. A small publisher or a self publisher in Iowa is not allowed while St. Martins Press in NYC is. <br />
<br />
While I still have great respect for Wikipedia, I am dismayed that it is so restrictive and does not encourage free thought and expression as I thought it did.<br />
<br />
I suggest everyone truly interested in a great summary of Intellectual Property Law get a copy of the textbook used in the Extension School's IP clas, Intellectual Property IN the New Technological Age. by Robert Meneges and others. It gives a great summary of all aspects of the subject including copyright, trademarks, patents, trade secrets etc.<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 09:00, 7 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Copyright law and theory is as I stated above founded on the principal that one who creates something should be rewarded for his or her toils and this serves as a financial or other incentive for future contributions to society. But this runs contra to the idea of a free and open highway of information that can be passed on and improved up. Again, the Internet is an institution, if I can call it that in balance and compromise. <br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 14:40, 7 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
The law changes even faster than science, but only in small increments. Barely a moment, and certainly not an hour goes by when some legislative body or executive is not enacting a new law. Yet major changes are slow in coming, and the law is usually show to adjust to advances in science. When the Internet and domain names first appeared every Peter and Paul registered a domain name of a popular company or product, such as Coclacola.com, because our intellectual property laws were far behind the Internet. The caught up, but not before thousands of creative individuals made a fortune by selling ones name back to them as domain names. <br />
<br />
Every major advance in communication has resulted in a major change in the law.<br />
<br />
The advent of movable type in 1436 caused a proliferation of books across Europe. It is estimated that before Gutenberg’s printing press the number of books in all of Europe numbered in the thousands, but that within 50 years, that number approached ten million. Such explosive growth and its accompanying economic opportunities created an immediate need for protection of the rights of both author and publisher from the earliest of literary pirates. <br />
<br />
The world’s first copyright law, the Statute of Anne, was enacted in England in 1710. Exercising its power under the newly adopted Constitution to secure the rights of authors and inventors, Congress passed an act almost identical to the Statute of Anne as the first American copyright law in 1790. <br />
<br />
We should be guided by history’s lessons when considering taking a position and playing any part in copyright law on the Internet.<br />
<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 11:47, 8 March 2013 (EST)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Copyright_Part_1:_Guiding_Principles_and_Online_Application&diff=10037Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application2013-03-12T20:57:29Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''March 5'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
'''[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-03-05-Copyright1.pdf Download slides for this week's class.]'''<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Assignments ==<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
== Readings/Watchings ==<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* 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]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
===Links From Adobe Connect Class Session===<br />
Letters patent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent<br />
<br />
Worshipful company of stationers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers<br />
<br />
Press Act 1662: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662<br />
<br />
Statute of Anne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne<br />
<br />
First book published in america (in harvard square): "The Whole Booke of Psalmes FaithfullyTranslated into English Metre." http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm004.html<br />
<br />
This American Life on Coca Cola's Recipe: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/427/original-recipe<br />
<br />
The monkey that stole the camera from a professional photographer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html<br />
<br />
There can be copyright interests in architectural works, but generally they wouldn't protect against photography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture<br />
<br />
The Mona Lisa with moustache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.<br />
<br />
On copyright duration and when different works fall into the public domain: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm<br />
<br />
Fair Use provision in the Copyright Act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107<br />
<br />
Amazon 1984 story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0<br />
<br />
There was a lawsuit over the Amazon-1984 dustup: http://www.pcworld.com/article/172953/amazon_kindle_1984_lawsuit.html<br />
<br />
Terry Fisher's site with his copyright class: http://tfisher.org/<br />
<br />
Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/<br />
===Other Links===<br />
The gloss we're doing in class on the duration of 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].<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Josh. I'm not sure if Sanchez meant to take on the second question as to how much damage is caused to the American economy by piracy. As to the "$12" discussion you mentioned, I agree that Sanchez is being a bit too fast and loose here, but I think what he is driving at is more macroscopic: that the presence of downloading for consumption of works doesn't have a substantial impact on the discretionary spending budgeted by citizens in America – the same amount of money is being spent, it is just being reallocated. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I do know that studies that have looked at the microeconomic dimension of that – that is, whether each download should be valued as a lost sale – have suggested largely that it does not. Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf have the [http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/ec106/strumpf.pdf most famous examination on point] (and their study has [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014399 its critics]), but other studies done by [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21view.html?_r=4& Wharton] and others have reinforced the general point. My point in including in today's reading was not to suggest that the RIAA is wrong and that Sanchez is right; it is rather to highlight the fact that we are trying to legislate in an area that is famous for a lot of hyperbolic talk and little empirical analysis. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 12:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Andy - That's useful background. I do believe Joshywonder's point is an important one. Having lived in a country (briefly) in which powerful anti-U.S. forces are a component of the government, and frequently finding U.S. movies on the street with sophisticated packaging materials for @$1, it was hard not to come to the conclusion that a little bit of economic warfare was occurring. People used their (hard to get) European student and travel visas for copious copying of US programming and would distribute these free among friends (think in terms of hours or days of constant downloading and in terms of multiple seasons of multiple TV shows), and you could understand why they were willing to do this because US programming was expensive to get and came from outside this country, and also because US movies and TV shows purchased legally were insanely expensive. Most of us living there on US salaries and with housing and food subsidies were living quite well, but when I went to legally purchase a movie as a gift, I was astonished at the cost (close to $30 US dollars).<br />
::[[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:14, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::And of course, you don't even have to go to overseas to see US movies on the street for $1. [http://piracy.americanassembly.org/the-report/ The Social Science Research Council] did a deep dig into it in 2011 and found that the rampant piracy in many countries is attributable to a few different factors, but principally what you flagged: a lack of antipiracy education and the overwhelmingly high cost of local legal alternatives. I would also be remiss not to mention that America's longstanding legacy in the international community was as pirates ourselves – we were very, very slow to recognize international copyright standards (over 100 years late in joining the Berne Convention), and used [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_clause all sorts of legal tricks] to inject foreign works into the public domain here. As small anecdotal example, Charles Dickens [http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/pva75.html very famously railed] against the lack of copyright protection of his works in the United States. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 14:50, 5 March 2013 (EST) <br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
Aaron you have brought up some important discussion points with your comments. I worked closely analyzing a company Global Crossings (GBLX on the NASDAQ) in the 90's. This company tried to attempt what you are speaking about. They attempted to lay the fiber optic cables throughout the world. Then they hit a road block with the oceans. How can you go and lay cables across the sea, let alone send someone down miles to repair the wire damage caused from a number of issues that arise? This is why the company went out of business. Government subsidies is many people's answer to fund projects. The truth in funding ventures is the market determines what is worth funding or not. Depending on politicians with really no business experience to make the decisions on what to and what not to fund is the problem and has put us in the debt we are currently engulfed in. I am in agreement with you that the copyright issue will become a major debate as technology expands. It will definitely be interesting to watch not only domestically but globally on the ramifications of challenging this IP in the future.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:57, 12 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject: <br />
<br />
Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/<br />
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
The prosecution of You Tube videos when a "performance" is uploaded of a toddler dancing to a pop music hit seems to me to be self-defeating and more in the sphere of 20th century thinking, such as when the music industry flailed about trying to stop digital downloads of their music. Times change, and the intellectual property laws that were lobbied for at one time and passed must be re-thought in the digital age. Needless to say, other countries around the world mercilessly copy and sell material such as DVD's of movies and music. This is nothing new, and it has not stopped. Clothing is copied in the same manner. Prosecuting citizens of your own country for enthusiatically promoting a brand for free on You Tube or anywhere else on social media or in person at a non-profit exhibition, or even for profit in a cover performance is to me the worse excess of over regulation. Performers can make money off of live performance instead of through digital sales. A copy of clothing is not the real thing, and those who can afford the real thing would never wear a copy, such as a Rolex on the corner. The customer base is grown through copies, not diminished. The global economy solves that problem. When corporations and laws focus on free trade in the global market and seek their profit points from live performance and pushing related items such as digital memberships for exclusive content, and interaction with the performers and creators of the art, intellectual property law will no longer be grasping at straws attempting to regulate across national lines into another country and have when that fails, go after their own fan base! Profit centers change, and in the digital age regulation and control have a place, but are not a replacement for the free market and competition that is able to flourish on world stage. <br />
<br />
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 13:15, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
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. <br />
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Wikipedia gave a brief and general description of the Copyright clause of the US Constitution, the history and origin of the copyright language and its effects. I've come to expect a bit more out of the Wikipedia community and was a bit surprised that there wasn't more content on it, especially considering the controversial nature of copyright laws.<br />
<br />
The first six minutes of the Lessig speech and his first point - the elephant in the room - seemed to me to neglect the idea that while the Internet is a place where massive amount of information is available virtually, the same information is still available through more traditional means and in physical form. This point is important because much of the world has access to traditional (i.e. pre-online) access to information and do not need to violate copyright law in order to access it. The counterpoint to my point would obviously be that much of the world does not have access to traditional forms of information and the Internet is their best and only means to obtain such information. However, I think it remains important to point out that convenience should not be a justification, in and of itself, to tear down copyright laws.<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, I struggle to understand the perspective those who are hostile towards the very existence of any copyright law. Copyright law protects the motivation and incentive for profit-seeking institutions to create and help advance the world by offering more choices, whether the purposes of their products or services are educational, entertainment, scientific or other purposes. It is true that those with altruistic motivations (i.e. those who create for the purposes of the proverbial "greater good" of society or the world) can and have made major contributions, but to ignore the value in protecting intellectual property of profit-seekers and those who want to protect what they create for any other purposes, will remove the incentive for a massive portion of the creative world to continue to produce.<br />
<br />
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:53, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, Ralph. If you're still hungry for more reading about the Copyright Clause and its history, I would strongly recommend Dotan Oliar's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ip/oliar_ipclause.pdf The Origins and Meanings of the Intellectual Property Clause]. His is probably the leader in the space about what was going on in the Framers' minds when the clause was drafted. And I wouldn't presume to speak for Lessig, but he has been rather insistent throughout all of his scholarship that he is not a copyright abolitionist. The question for him (and for me, and for many, many legal scholars out there) is not the whether, but the how – what is the appropriate calibration of rights and limitations that would afford authors sufficient (and appropriate) compensation for their works, while also allowing the general public sufficient freedom to expand and build upon existing works in order to further our scientific and artistic progress.[[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
This week at the computer was pure ecstasy. I love the articles that we read for class and the informative nature of this material. The copyright problem as exasperated with the current issues is probably the most interesting thing ever. So, when I went to that site called Creative Commons, I felt like the world was lifted off by back. I sat in front of my computer and was elated. Then, I realized that the articles listed there were open copyright copyrights and basically send up the idea that the whole situation there is just about as fabulous as a Project Runway show where intelligent designers get their ideas stolen by people with more intellectual capital. So regardless as this is, the differing platforms and the differing modes of media interpretation, show how people online can steal eachother's ideas, even if not the spellcheck. So this weeks readings left me in a tizzy about lecture today and I know that regardless of this exoneration of say, multiple cycles of cyclical group therapy, aka communism, that the internet is certainly a place I will continue to play on for years to come. Thank you for you time. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
I thought this was a good basic overview of copyright law and the Creative Commons license. However I would have liked a bit more background (thanks for providing the link) on current copyright law, and a bit more critique on the Creative Commons licenses. I found a Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons, on the Creative Commons license that contained some links to critical voices. I also found a paper that went a bit into who is using the licenses and how they are using them herehttp://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol4-1/coates.asp. The author of the article, Jessica Coates, was the Project Manager at the Creative Commons Clinic at Queensland University of Technology at the time the paper was written. The Creative Commons website contains a list of articles here:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Scholarship_and_critique_regarding_Creative_Commons<br />
<br />
According to the Creative Commons website, this is the current breakdown of usage, charts are available on the site. See the site for how the data was gathered and the caveats on usage) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_statistics<br />
"These charts show a breakdown of the types of licenses deployed and the properties of deployed licenses, based on Yahoo! queries as of 2006-06-13. (As above the Google API is now superior for an aggregate count, but Yahoo link: searches are superior for measuring the relative deployment of specific licenses and thus specific license types.)"<br />
<br />
by: 96.6%<br />
<br />
nc: 67.5%<br />
<br />
nd: 24.3%<br />
<br />
sa: 45.4%<br />
<br />
Finally, knowing little more about current copyright law and use then can be found in this class and in the media, one of the critiques mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Creative Commons had me wanting to know more:<br />
<br />
"Péter Benjamin Tóth asserts that Creative Commons' objectives are already well served by the current copyright system, and that Creative Commons' "some rights reserved" slogan, as opposed to the "all rights reserved" principle, creates a false dichotomy. "Copyright provides a list of exclusive rights to the rightholder, from which he decides which ones he wishes to 'sell' or grant and which to retain. The 'some rights reserved' concept is therefore not an alternative to, but rather the very nature of classical copyright." The link for this quote is here:^ Tóth, Péter Benjamin (2009). Creative Humbug. Indicare Project http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=118<br />
<br />
I suppose the response to this argument is that one would have to track the creator down and request permission for use, whereas the Creative Commons license allows this info to be embedded by machine language and carried across the web with the material, but without digging into the articles on the Creative Commons website and elsewhere on the web, I really don't know enough (and obviously, I'd like to) to have an opinion on whether or not the Creative Commons licenses are truly a solution to the problem to which tonight's readings point.<br />
<br />
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for sharing that, Raven. We will (time permitting) be digging into the limitations of the Creative Commons solutions tonight, but I do appreciate you flagging them here as well. More criticism can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons#Criticism here]. I'd note that much of the modern criticism around Creative Commons (especially as version 4.0 of the licenses is soon to be deployed) is not based on the premise, but on the execution – wondering whether and to what extent the licenses may develop inconsistencies or may be incompatible with other open source licenses (such as the GNU FSF or MIT licenses). My response to Tóth would begin with what you flagged already – that it would be impossible to actually track down each specific user to secure the rights to do many things online. Tóth is correct that the rights granted under copyright (for the most part) are optionally enforceable, but there's a big difference in execution between deciding whether to exercise that option in the moment and communicating to the world that you can use this affirmatively. As to whether it "erodes" copyright, another popular criticism, perhaps most famously brought by ASCAP, I personally don't find much credence in it. Creative Commons very much depends on copyright in order to work, as enforcement for violation of a CC term (e.g., using CC-BY-NC works for commercial purposes, or CC-BY works without attribution) would be an action for copyright infringement. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Katzer only major US case addressing open licenses] used this to find liability for violation of the GNU GPL. And by empowering authors to decide for themselves work-by-work the fundamental choice remains with the party who – as Tóth said – is empowered always under copyright law to make the choice. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
As a nonphysical and interactive medium, the internet alters concepts of ownership, reproduction, and exchange. On the internet, people can can claim others' media and ideas much more subtly than in the physical world. Technologies that aggregate massive amounts of content, such as Google and Wikipedia, strip owners of control over their work . As Lessig argues, the internet has changed the way we interact with out culture, and thus, necessitated revision of how culture creators establish ownership. While less prohibitive licenses such as the Creative Commons have developed, these new terms of ownership do not mitigate the disconnect between content creators and online users/viewers. Not just copyright law must change, but also internet users' awareness of copyright law in of online work they hope to use. On the creators end, while uploading content, they should be able to designate copyright preferences. At the user endpoints, perhaps web browsers could have a feature that allows users to view the specified copyright of web content elements, similar to the web inspector tool. If there were more apparent ways for users and creators to interact with copyright, I wonder whether this would constrain accessibility to and sharing of information. EDIT: Well, just learned in class that this search function with meta-tags does indeed exist! Cool. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 13:17, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
Lessig's article is an illustration of the aggressive silliness of intellectual property laws in the age of arbitrary replication. The conference by the state of monopolies on the creations of its citizens imputes a kind of religious reverence for intellectual labor as such that is totally unwarranted, particularly in view of the particular technical characteristics of the Internet. UMG is no more responsible for the existence of its artists' works than was James Joyce for the authorship of Ulysses; as cultural products, both represent the final outputs of endlessly old systems of replication, deletion, and signification between people and institutions. The notion that "creators" are imbued with particular rights and prerogatives on account of their proximity and behavioral involvement in cultural inventions promotes a peculiar brand of neurologically illiterate creationism.<br />
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:25, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
Lessig's article very much reminded me of a peice written by Adam Ludwin, venture capitalist focused on early stage finacing. The article is entiled The Age of the Meme (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/09/the-age-of-the-meme/ ) In it he writes "We are an always-on culture now. Social networks have reached critical mass. Inexpensive tools for creating and remixing content have been widely adopted. Our collective consciousness has come online. The intelligence in the system is now coming from below, not above. The sage on the stage is no more. And our collective mind is pumping out memes that are shaping every conceivable domain" We're creating culture from the bottom up not the top-down. The hive mind cycles through and collects inofrmation and spits out new beats of culture faster than any design firm or ad agency ever could These peices which " go viral;" have a histroy un to their own. Cultural relevence for fleeting and passing moments. Who do these artifacts eally belong to? Is an image when captured by the hive mind still the property of its owner? How about a piece of music sampled in a youtube clip? Do the owners of Grumpy Cat own the image of grumpy cat? At what point does surrendering something to the internet mean giving it up as celebrities give up some of their writes as private individuals when entering the spotlight? The internet after all is a giant copying machine. Lessig talks about unintended casualties. I hope our freedom to create, rehash, redesign, copy paste, delete, morph, mash isn't one of them. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
Here is pic of the monkey that hi-jacked the camera!<br />
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FahGRKZ6vL4/T51NeFxZPII/AAAAAAAATXk/quOXJ0_NtEQ/s1600/pic.jpg<br />
<br />
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 18:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
****<br />
<br />
The issue of copyright, free speech and so many of the issues on the Internet create a conflict between OUR national mores, ethics, morals and laws and the rest of the world. We continue to be an imperialistic nation, but the net has given everyone equal power as military size, strength and resolve is no longer a benefit or detriment. Everyone, every country can have its say.<br />
<br />
The Internet has become a tug of war between the so-called democratic nations like the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan and the closed societies, China, the Arab world, South American and African dictatorships, and still in many ways Russia. The leader of China in the 1990's stated that when opening a window to let the frssh air in resulting in some flies entering. The Internet is the Information Highway, and these closed societies look at information as the enemy. They rule by segregation, ignorance of the populous, lack of free thought and fear. Free speech is free thought and will upset their apple cart.<br />
<br />
We need to be able to communicate than force our values on others. We do not have unlimited free speech, but only enough free speech to allow actions and thoughts that do not interfere with the way the leaders decide their people will act. Obscenity, defamation, insurgency laws limit free speech. So do national and religious interests. Today many informational Internet sites charge fees, some exobitant. Others require registration, exchanging access for information. All of these restrict free speech.<br />
<br />
Our Intellectual Property laws are also limitations on free speech. The concept behind intellectual property protections are two-fold: (1) To encourage new thoughts and the advancement of the culture as to the arts and sciences in the society, and (2) To compensate those whose hard word resulted in novel ideas, thoughts and inventions ... without with there is little incentive to create new things.<br />
<br />
I have used Wikipedia for years, but when I began Assignment1 and was directed not to include any essays that contained original research. I contributed a second article independent of the one I did for the class. It was about the second old road bridge in the United States that has been buried intact for 140 years. It is a great historical treasure here in NJ where it is the oldest bridge. I was able to confirm its status both nationally and in NJ but reviewing many bridge databases, along with submissions for listings and listings on the National Register of Historic Places. My efforts were rejected with the rational that since no one else ever wrote about this bridge and Wiki is a site that only edits existing published information, there was no place on it for my efforts. And, they have vague standards what is published and what publishers are allowed. A small publisher or a self publisher in Iowa is not allowed while St. Martins Press in NYC is. <br />
<br />
While I still have great respect for Wikipedia, I am dismayed that it is so restrictive and does not encourage free thought and expression as I thought it did.<br />
<br />
I suggest everyone truly interested in a great summary of Intellectual Property Law get a copy of the textbook used in the Extension School's IP clas, Intellectual Property IN the New Technological Age. by Robert Meneges and others. It gives a great summary of all aspects of the subject including copyright, trademarks, patents, trade secrets etc.<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 09:00, 7 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Copyright law and theory is as I stated above founded on the principal that one who creates something should be rewarded for his or her toils and this serves as a financial or other incentive for future contributions to society. But this runs contra to the idea of a free and open highway of information that can be passed on and improved up. Again, the Internet is an institution, if I can call it that in balance and compromise. <br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 14:40, 7 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
The law changes even faster than science, but only in small increments. Barely a moment, and certainly not an hour goes by when some legislative body or executive is not enacting a new law. Yet major changes are slow in coming, and the law is usually show to adjust to advances in science. When the Internet and domain names first appeared every Peter and Paul registered a domain name of a popular company or product, such as Coclacola.com, because our intellectual property laws were far behind the Internet. The caught up, but not before thousands of creative individuals made a fortune by selling ones name back to them as domain names. <br />
<br />
Every major advance in communication has resulted in a major change in the law.<br />
<br />
The advent of movable type in 1436 caused a proliferation of books across Europe. It is estimated that before Gutenberg’s printing press the number of books in all of Europe numbered in the thousands, but that within 50 years, that number approached ten million. Such explosive growth and its accompanying economic opportunities created an immediate need for protection of the rights of both author and publisher from the earliest of literary pirates. <br />
<br />
The world’s first copyright law, the Statute of Anne, was enacted in England in 1710. Exercising its power under the newly adopted Constitution to secure the rights of authors and inventors, Congress passed an act almost identical to the Statute of Anne as the first American copyright law in 1790. <br />
<br />
We should be guided by history’s lessons when considering taking a position and playing any part in copyright law on the Internet.<br />
<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 11:47, 8 March 2013 (EST)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&diff=9903Assignment 2 Submissions2013-03-05T11:44:26Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Comments */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
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].<br />
<br />
In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Prospectus title: <br />
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
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!<br />
<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments<br />
*Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”<br />
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Pseudonym: "Asmith" <br />
*Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”<br />
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
:Hi ASmith. i think that your work it´s a perfect oportunity in order to expose a new theory, or an alternative of the concept of Intellectual Property in the network. because if the community make their own rules, maybe, can construct new limits, exceptions etc, in this area. Natalia ´´´´<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
Hello Asmith: This is a very interesting topic, I am intrigued to see what model you use to best compare the benefits and the limitations of introducing this new type of platform.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo<br />
*Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"<br />
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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. ''''<br />
<br />
Hello Rich: I think as Natalia suggested defining your definition of free speech is critical to gain a greater understanding of the argument you will make within the parameters of the paper. Within different cultures this can be defined in many different ways and once you establish this it will be an easier journey to state and prove your case.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Pseudonym: AaronEttl<br />
*Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"<br />
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
:Aaron,<br /><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 /><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 /><br />
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 17:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Aaron: I think you pose many questions in your prospectus that would each individually be enough for a ten page paper. To narrow your feild of research i think it might be interesting to observe and stdy what goes into a successful kickstarter fund and derive from that observation conclusions about what the operations guide of kickstarter influences the kinds of funs that do well. "For Kickstarter, how does the level of regulation affect the integrity of those projects and is there any bias in the type of projects seen? " I think if you flip this around and look at the question from the bottom-up rather than the top-down you may have a more successful research question. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor <br /><br />
*'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication” <br /><br />
:An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. <br /><br />
*'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/? title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Hi Hunter, <br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Hi Hunter, i think that this theme is a little too wide, so, in order to be more specific, you can take one of the liberties than can be affect by governments control, and analyze that. Natalia. ´´´´<br />
<br />
Hello Hunter: The broad scope of you paper may make it difficult to cover all the avenues in 8-10 pages. I think you should consider making this a thesis topic. There is a lot of areas and directions you can really go which would make it very thorough. It sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to seeing your paper progress. Good Luck.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Pseudonym: Dear Alice<br />
*Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"<br />
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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 /><br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Michael Keane <br />
*"A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community" <br /><br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:MichaelKeane_assignment2_prospectus.docx<br />
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Hi Michael,<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:You’ve chosen a very interesting topic that most of us have probably considered at some point. It’s often difficult to know where to draw the line when making policy decisions of this sort – to create a system that handles edge cases judiciously – and some people clearly aren’t even trying to create a fair system. I wonder what you can generalize from a case study like this. In short, how much variance do you think there is in the forms that censorship takes in web communities? It seems that there are powerful conventions and practical limitations with regards to how content control is done, such that many of the same features keep reappearing again and again.<br />
<br />
:At the end of your final paragraph, you say that removing entire discussions is a highly effective approach to content control. Would you mind elaborating on this? What standard of effectiveness are you using? Is something that merely keeps the community silent effective, or something that keeps it happy? What makes banning members sometimes less effective in comparison?<br />
:[[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: Natalia<br />
*Prospectus title: “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, RIGHTS TO INFORMATION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON INTERNET: CONFLICTING RIGHTS?”<br />
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Natalia_Assignment2.docx<br />
<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Kaley Sweeney comments: Hi Natalia, I agree with Daniel that your paper can use more focus. The topic of intellectual property is exceptionally broad and can encompass an enormous number of cases, law, international interpretation, etc. It might be helpful to narrow down on one or two case studies that particularly peak your interest that you feel make a major statement for the future of IP and confirm your hypotheses. Perhaps you can also focus on one of your three questions, as there are many discussion points buried within each, within the context of one particular country. Intellectual property is interesting to explore, particularly as the changing nature of social sharing is entirely shifting the concept. If you can hone in on one refined idea, I think you can find yourself developing some fascinating ideas and predictions. <br />
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Rebekahjudson<br />
*Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?" <br />
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf<br />
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Rabekah- Your proposal sounds like an interesting subject. Is this group something that you have taken part in, or is your statement “Critique from Within” to be interpreted that Weird Twitter is critiquing Twitter or the Twitter community from within? It looks like you have a good outline and a method that will lead you to interesting material. I am wondering how this relates to censorship or control. Does the tweeting of Weird Twitter have any sort of influence on the broader Twitter community? Do members of a group in Twitter influence one another in a way that has some sort of an influence on the group as a whole?[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
:Rebekah, this is an interesting online community - one I hadn't previously been familiar with, but fascinating to learn about. My main thought while reading this is the longevity of this community. Google Analytics has shown the search rate for "Weird Twitter" drop dramatically in the past month. I wonder if the loose group of individuals may be fluid in their terminology, and therefore be a bit difficult to track down. On that note, well done selecting several twitter users from the start to monitor. I imagine if they are consistent in their "Weird Twitter" tweets, you will also find yourself becoming familiar with the online community that extends beyond these users. My second thought would be the impact this community - fluid as it may be - has on the wider twitter community. If they are not operating under a single hashtag, how do new users find them? How do they distinguish themselves?<br />
:Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
:Rebekah, I love this topic! I've been a fan of horse_ebooks and Riff Raff, but was unaware of any umbrella term under which they belonged. <br />
:Though both personalities tweet in this poetical anarchist fashion, disregarding traditional language conventions, I would never associate them together because of their vastly motivations. Riff Raff wants fame and fortune. Horse_ebooks wants to be invisible. However, according to the Chicago Reader's Weird Twitter map, Riff Raff and Horse_ebooks hold similarly prominent positons in spite of their real life differences. The concept of "Weird Twitter" is completely reader-defined, and I think requires exploration of the population who appreciates these aliases and associates them with one another, perhaps in contrast to Weird Twitter author's real motivations. One last thing is to explore is how Twitter's architecture (i.e. the 150 character confines) have altered how we think to use language and enable/prevent "weird Twitter." Here are some relevant articles about Horse_ebooks and Riff Raff: http://gawker.com/5887697/ http://gawker.com/5912835/riff-raffs-got-a-record-deal-making-sense-of-the-most-viral-human-being-in-music <br />
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 21:07, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder<br />
*Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus<br />
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Joshywonder: This is a very interesting case that you site. Was there a public response to this incident? Did the individual who brought the suit suffer in reputation either from the content of the site or from the attention given to the lawsuit? Is the site something that you personally took part in? Do you think that anonymous posters or posters using pseudonyms make a valuable contribution to discussion in public internet forums? It looks like you have developed your method and you have plenty of interesting information to choose from. I think that an important factor in your write-up will be to narrow your presentation to the details you think will best inform your audience of the issues at stake and best illuminate the specific case as a study subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Matthew D. Haney<br />
*"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Milenagrado<br />
*"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc<br />
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Hi Milena, what an interesting topic. Duolingo reminds me of a wikipedia of sorts in the ways it relates to copyrighted information. As crowdsourced information has grown in the past few years, I imagine you may also find similar information on how copyright is addressed in recent case studies. Another question to ask would be how users can ensure the translation is accurate? If you delve into the terms & conditions, you may also wish to see how Duolingo holds users accountable and verify the information is indeed an accurate representation of the initial intent. There are many concepts to delve into here, but I think you have done a very nice job of boiling it down to the main concerns the site may encounter moving forward.Kaley Sweeney 20:41, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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. <br />
:[[User:User777|user777]] 17:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
* Pseudonym: Tessa May<br />
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?<br />
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf<br />
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
:''Reposted following deletion/edit conflict'' [[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:31, 27 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Tessa,<br/><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 /><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 /><br />
:[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 18:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
:Hi Tessa,<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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). <br />
:[[User:User777|user777]] 18:21, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*<br />
:Daniel Cameron Morris comments: Tessa, exploring the idea of censorship on LinkedIn groups sounds good. My suggestion is perhaps attempting to see why some might censor or remove content, for example, if the poster is attempting to get them to go to another group on the same topic. Perhaps content subtractions occur when the owner(s) of the group want simply to exert more control over the group as opposed to encouraging as many comments as possible. Other times, comments might be deleted due to not fitting into the general standards of professionalism that is expected on LinkedIn. Mabye you can come up with your own categories for deleted comments to expand on this, and determine if the deletions are leaning more toward censorship or content control. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 19:52, 3 March 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Alicia Phan | APhan<br />
*"Assignment#2 - Law As Culture; Facebook & Privacy Rights"<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/AliciaPhan_Assignment2.docx<br />
[[User:APhan|APhan]] 08:24, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
*<br />
:Daniel Cameron Morris User Comments: Alicia, Your examination of privacy rights on social networking sites such as Facebook is fascinating. I would ask, 'Are our intellectual property rights waived automatically when we use a limited privacy social network site?' The topic seems really hot right now, and going into the various privacy settings on Facebook and arguments pro and con in light of legal decisions in the United States and other nations, even international bodies, will be enlightening to fellow Facebook fans. A suggestion could be analysis of each privacy setting, with pro and con arguments for personal privacy being intellectual property that must be waived to share with others. Pretty sure that is what already happens, but really without the examination my comments are just speculation. I await your comments on my proposal as well. Thanks!<br />
:[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 22:07, 3 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Assignment 2 _USER777 . <br />
*Facebook-Marketing-Power of "Like"<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:USER777_Assignment_2.docx<br />
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:35, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Muromi<br />
*Prospectus Title: Maintaining Stability in China's Cyberspace<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Muromi_assignment_2.pdf<br />
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 12:02, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
* Zak Paster<br />
* Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era<br />
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Assignment_2_Online_Fundraising_Communities_2-26-13.docx<br />
* [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 12:49, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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?<br />
:[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 09:12, 3 March 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*RobMcLain<br />
*Under the Watchful Eye: Community, Connivery, and Censorship on Yelp<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/RobMcLain_Assignment2.docx<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:RobMcLain: It would appear we indeed have nearly identical projects - let's team up :) [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 14:50, 2 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
RobMcLain: Fantastic topic. I've personally experienced some of yelp's connivery. When I was running a popular downtown restaurant in Texas we held the top Yelp ranking until we decided not to pay for advertising on Yelp. After that decision our 5-star ratings began to disappear into thin air. I am curious how you plan to track and observe so many actions on such a large site where moderation isn't necessarily noted. I'd be very interested to see how you narrow your research. All my best. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 03:58, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Caroline<br />
*The Right to be Forgotten <br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Righttobeforgotten.doc<br />
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 13:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
*Caroline: I love your ideas but you have so many i don't know where your focus is. I think your primary topic, "research how this regulation [ the right to forget] and potential similar regulations in North America would impact the Internet. " will be difficult to approach as that's all theoretical. What would be something you could actively observe? Perhaps looking at a community and following the recency of topics posted? Cheers. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 04:46, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
******<br />
<br />
*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)<br />
*<br />
:Alan Ginsberg: Unfortunately your file is no longer on the server - I also tried searching for it on the "uploaded files" page but to no avail [[User:Mattyh|Mattyh]] 16:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Johnathan Merkwan: Johnathan, it seems like you have a lot of ideas and are attempting to address several broad areas, including international, sociological, and architectural perspectives through field world. Reading this prospectus, I was confused at a few points, such as "According to each face as an old friend, I have been studying the relativity of facial recognition.. " This sounds interesting, but I'm not entirely certain what it means. Does this mean you are comparing the new friends you are adding to the old friends you deleted? You say, "Now Facebook has deemed my friendships “real,”" but do not specify how Facebook has promoted this realness. I think something valuable in your prospectus so far is your investigation of "the spellcheck, autocorrect, and various prompted questions Facebook has alerted me to, and in doing so shall see how each action makes a difference, contextually." I think you should continue with this line of questioning, investing how facebook's suggestions influence our behavior on the site. Here is a tool to analyze your personal facebook behavior: http://www.wolframalpha.com/facebook/ and another useful facebook statistic link http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6128/The-Ultimate-List-100-Facebook-Statistics-Infographics.aspx .<br />
:[[User:Jax|Jax]] 20:38, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, Jax, for your comment. I will try to elucidate some of these issues that are inherent in my document. I admit it may be difficult for people to accurately spell my name. That addressed, how about a brief understanding of my perspective. With the War on Terror as it were, why is it necessary to altercate between various nations of power the mere definition of a word? Susan Goldstein, or Einstein, are not tangentially related; wherefore, the understanding of this situation is supposed to be confusing. I do dearly appreciate your response, yet it was and is not directed at me; much less johnathan Merkwan, or alan Ginsberg. If this has made things worse, I can only say things in person, not via computer. Thus, your links are a fabulous addition to my ideas, as intentionally, crude and misleading as they might be... (I call this, "intrigue". So, as this idea develops, I will keep you updated with pop culture as I see it, in the light of the Lacanian disposition this proposal defined cohesively, yet, clearly has accepted your suggestions sic collaboration.[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 22:24, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: Free speech, <br />
*Prospectus title: “The study of Internet control on online travel community.” <br />
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Free_speech_-_Assignment_2.docx <br />
([[User:Free speech|Free speech]] 14:13, 26 February 2013 (EST))<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Phillip Dade<br />
*The DPLA, is it Additive? Subtractive? Redundant? (DPLA = Digital Public Library of America)<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:DADE_-_2nd_Assignment_-_DPLA.doc<br />
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 15:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
::* @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)<br />
*<br />
: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<br />
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)<br />
*<br />
:I thought the title was a bit odd. Since so few people are familiar with the DPLA, wouldn’t it be better to give more context? “Additive” and “subtractive” can be a little confusing when one doesn’t know what the noun means, since those words are used regularly in very different ways. I would suggest something along the lines of “Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DPLA.”<br />
<br />
:The argument about it contributing to social stratification was quite familiar for me; it seems to be used against many new technologies and developments.<br />
<br />
:Good luck with your project. It sounds quite interesting. I think it’s a good idea to implement it as a video, in terms of accessibility. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Name: Susan Goldstein<br />
*Prospectus title: “What is the Definition of “Open” in a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC)?”<br />
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Susan_Goldstein_Assignment2.docx<br />
[[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 15:44, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
::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.<br />
*<br />
: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) <br />
::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. <br />
Susan [[User:Susan Goldstein|Susan Goldstein]] 20:27, 2 March 2013 (EST) <br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Kaley Sweeney<br />
*Internet in North Korea: The Changing Scene of Totalitarian Control Under Kim Jung-Un<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Prospectus.docx<br />
Kaley Sweeney 15:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Raven<br />
*Prospectus Title: Creating Valuable Content: Commenters and Your Commenting Community<br />
*Link to Prospectust: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Raven_Assignment_2_Due_February_26_2013.docx&oldid=9718<br />
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:59, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*saridder: Steve Ridder<br />
<br />
*The Digital Marketplace<br />
<br />
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Steve_Ridder_Assignment_2.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 16:18, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Saridder – First, I have to say that I think you are very ambitious! You have a lot going into your prospectus. I think 8-10 pages will only allow you to skim the surface of this broad subject area. I suggest that you select one of these companies or forums and use it as a model to explore your question. I would also suggest narrowing your question to one main question with a couple of sub-questions. This part of the exercise is often the hardest part, but it will allow you to dig a little deeper into one most interesting topic. I am looking forward to reading your perspective in this emerging subject. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:11, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*María Paz Jurado<br />
*Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/MariaPazJurado-Assignment2.pdf<br />
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 16:22, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*John Floyd<br />
*Emergent Institutions: Technical Innovation in the Absence of Governance<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Floydprospectus.txt<br />
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 16:53, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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?<br />
Good luck. I look forward to your final result. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 16:46, 28 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Hi John,<br />
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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Pseudonym: CyberRalph<br />
*Prospectus: Anonymous and Their Aggressiveness in the Twittersphere<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Martins_Assignment2.docx<br />
[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 16:55, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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) <br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: Julian<br />
*Prospectus title: We the People: On the Effectiveness of Public Outreach<br />
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Julian_Assignment2.txt<br />
[[User:Julian|Julian]] 17:10, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
******<br />
*Aly Barbour<br />
*Prospectus: The prevalence and moderation of the ‘Pro-Ana’ movement<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Abarbour_prospectus.docx<br />
[[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 17:17, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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. <br />
*<br />
: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) <br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Pseudonym: JW<br />
<br />
*Prospectus title: Reddit's Dox Paradox: Proper or Not?<br />
<br />
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:JW_Assignment2.txt<br />
[[User:JW|JW]] 17:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:I think that’s an interesting topic, which surprisingly we haven’t covered much in class yet. It raises many interesting questions. In what ways, and how does the legal system protect anonymity? And are those protections by design, or unintentional as Section 230 was by operating separately from the rest of the legislation with which it was supposed to be packaged? Should those laws be there, or were they mistakes? Often, normative questions reduce to tradeoffs. In this case, it’s the classic tradeoff between privacy and incentivizing socially advantageous behavior.<br />
<br />
:Also, have you decided which of Lessig’s four constraints you’ll be using? Are you sure you’ll only be using one? It seems that there are critical points to be made from more angles, and could probably be done without extending scope to beyond what is manageable with the time and length constraints. [[User:Julian|Julian]] 19:39, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Pseudonym: Jax, formerly known as Jaclyn Horowitz<br />
*Prospectus Title: Ignorance and the Colonization of Rap Genius<br />
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Jax_Assignment2.docx<br />
[[User:Jax|Jax]] 17:57, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*'''Becca Luberoff'''<br /><br />
*'''Prospectus title:''' Issues of Privacy and Security in Online Mental Health Communities <br /><br />
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Assignment2.docx <br /><br />
[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 19:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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.<br />
:[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 15:59, 4 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Pseudonym: baughller<br />
*Prospectus title: Ethical Implications of Personalized Search<br />
*Link to Prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_2_-_Prospectus.docx<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
*Laurence Girard<br />
<br />
*Laurence Girard Prospectus <br />
<br />
*Question: What effect does reading online health information have on the health of our society?<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
*<br />
: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)<br />
*<br />
:Laurence – Your subject is interesting. Is there a data source containing the information that you are interested in? How would it be known if someone looked up a disease on WebMD, then went to Amazon and purchased a supplement that might be suggested for treating it? Google or other companies that send out tacking cookies might collected this type of information. Access to this data is an important factor for your study. Also, does your subject relate to control or censorship? If the data cannot be collected easily, the subject might need to be narrowed or focused on an area where you can collect data. [[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 21:32, 4 March 2013 (EST)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Copyright_Part_1:_Guiding_Principles_and_Online_Application&diff=9902Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application2013-03-05T11:35:51Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''March 5'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Assignments ==<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
== Readings/Watchings ==<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* 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]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
*********<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject: <br />
<br />
Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/<br />
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*********<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&diff=9674Assignment 2 Submissions2013-02-26T12:26:07Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Comments */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
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].<br />
<br />
In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Prospectus title: <br />
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
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!<br />
<br />
<br />
Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments<br />
Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”<br />
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:LSTUAssignment2.docx<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: "Asmith" <br />
Prospectus title: “Diaspora* A Social Network for the People by the People”<br />
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment2.doc<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: Rich Cacioppo<br />
Prospectus title: "The Limits of Fee Speech In Light of Cultural Senility and Pragmatism"<br />
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Internet_Control_proposal_February_24_2013.pdf<br />
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 00:45, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: AaronEttl<br />
Prospectus Title: "The Market's Impact on Operational Policies"<br />
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment2.docx<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 13:11, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
'''Pseudonym''': Hgaylor<br />
'''Prospectus''':“Access for Open and Secure Communication”<br />
An In-depth analysis of government’s role in the Global Collaborative Data Network. <br />
'''Link to Prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=File:Hunter_Gaylor_Prospectus(_Internet_Society).docx&oldid=9645<br />
<br />
*****<br />
Pseudonym: Dear Alice<br />
Prospectus Title: "One Company, Multiple Social Media Platforms, Numerous Conversations"<br />
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_Two_Prospectus.docx<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 17:50, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
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<br />
<br />
[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 18:20, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Rebekahjudson<br />
Title: "'Weird Twitter': Critique from Within?" <br />
Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonprospectus.rtf<br />
<br />
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 21:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
*****<br />
Name or pseudonym: Joshywonder<br />
Prospectus title: Lawbuzz_Prospectus<br />
Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Lawbuzz_Prospectus_-_Joshywonder.Feb25.13.docx<br />
<br />
*****<br />
Matthew D. Haney<br />
"Online Review Platform Yelp – filtering for hire?"<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matthew_D_Haney_-_Assignment_2_Prospectus%2C_02262013.docx<br />
<br />
*****<br />
Milenagrado<br />
"Duolingo and Copyright Issues"<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment2milenagrado.doc<br />
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:34, 25 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*****<br />
* Pseudonym: Tessa May<br />
* Prospectus title: Moderation or Censorship in LinkedIn Groups?<br />
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Tessa_May_Assignment_2.pdf<br />
[[User:Tessa May|Tessa May]] 02:52, 26 February 2013 (EST)<br />
*****</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&diff=9637Assignment 2 Submissions2013-02-24T23:49:24Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
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].<br />
<br />
In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Prospectus title: <br />
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
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!<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments<br />
Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”<br />
Link to prospectus: <br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&diff=9636Assignment 2 Submissions2013-02-24T23:47:43Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
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].<br />
<br />
In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Prospectus title: <br />
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
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!<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments<br />
Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”<br />
Link to prospectus:<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 18:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_2_Submissions&diff=9635Assignment 2 Submissions2013-02-24T23:47:22Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
''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."<br />
<br />
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].<br />
<br />
In the [[#Submissions|submissions]] section below please post the following information:<br />
<br />
*Name or pseudonym: <br />
*Prospectus title: <br />
*Link to prospectus: (add your link here)<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
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!<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Name or pseudonym: interestingcomments<br />
Prospectus title: “Does US Trade Treaties Advance Internet Freedom in South America.”<br />
Link to prospectus:</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Regulating_Speech_Online&diff=9630Regulating Speech Online2013-02-22T22:06:58Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''February 26'''<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide: Defamation]<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act Wikipedia, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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)]<br />
<br />
* '''Case Study: The SPEECH Act'''<br />
<br />
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy Wikipedia, ''Funding Evil''] (focus on the “Libel Controversy” section)<br />
<br />
:* [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”)]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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)]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
==Class Discussion ==<br />
TAG: Student ID#10789842<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The readings and the discussion in the class this week was very interesting and I appreciate it. <br />
<br />
Have a nice week. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:06, 22 February 2013 (EST)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Whose_Values&diff=9588Whose Values2013-02-14T14:15:36Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''February 19'''<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.economist.com/node/16941635 The Economist, The Future of the Internet: A Virtual Counter-Revolution]<br />
<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
* 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]<br />
<br />
* [http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/free-expression-and-controversial.html Rachel Whetstone, Free Expression and Controversial Content on the Web]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71625.html Eliza Krigman, Next Battle over Net Ramps Up Worldwide (Politico)]<br />
<br />
* '''Case Study: The Innocence of Muslims'''<br />
<br />
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocence_of_Muslims Wikipedia, ''The Innocence of Muslims'']<br />
<br />
:* [http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/14/opinion/york-libya-youtube/index.html Jillian York, Should Google Censor an Anti-Islam Video?]<br />
<br />
:* [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]<br />
<br />
:* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech Andy Sellars, The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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]<br />
<br />
* [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'')]<br />
<br />
* [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?]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
<br />
Student Initials: TAG <br />
Student ID# 10789842<br />
<br />
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.”<br />
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<br />
<br />
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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&diff=9504Assignment 1 Submissions2013-02-12T10:47:41Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:<br />
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)<br />
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)<br />
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:<br />
<br />
* (Name or Pseudonym)<br />
<br />
* (Link to rule)<br />
<br />
* (Link to article)<br />
<br />
* (Link to your submitted report)<br />
<br />
[[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 09:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)<br />
******<br />
<br />
Mattyh (Matthew Haney)<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Third_Reich<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matt_Haney_-_Assignment_1%2C_02102013.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Admits<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment1.doc<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
Dear Alice<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_1_(Dear_Alice).docx<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 15:42, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
'''Initials In Name:''' TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
<br />
'''Pseudonym:''' interesting comments<br />
<br />
'''Link to rule:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
'''Link to article:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html<br />
<br />
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/<br />
<br />
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)<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
User777<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth<br />
<br />
Assignment #1 – Neutral Point of View <br />
Class user: user777<br />
Wiki user: user55462*<br />
February 12th, 2013<br />
Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
AaronEttl<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment1.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 16:38, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Maria Paz Jurado<br />
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
* http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobierno_abierto<br />
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Paz_Jurado_-_Assignment_1.docx<br />
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 17:19, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
Milenagrado<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assigment_1.doc<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Rebekahjudson<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonassignment1.rtf<br />
***<br />
<br />
Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Joshua Henderson, joshywonder<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech<br />
Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_1_-_Joshua_Henderson_-_Joshywonder_-_Feb11.13.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
HGaylor:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hunter_Gaylor_Internet_Article_.docx</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&diff=9503Assignment 1 Submissions2013-02-12T10:46:35Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:<br />
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)<br />
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)<br />
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:<br />
<br />
* (Name or Pseudonym)<br />
<br />
* (Link to rule)<br />
<br />
* (Link to article)<br />
<br />
* (Link to your submitted report)<br />
<br />
[[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 09:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)<br />
******<br />
<br />
Mattyh (Matthew Haney)<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Third_Reich<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matt_Haney_-_Assignment_1%2C_02102013.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Admits<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment1.doc<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
Dear Alice<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_1_(Dear_Alice).docx<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 15:42, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
'''Initials In Name:''' TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
<br />
'''Pseudonym:''' interesting comments<br />
<br />
'''Link to rule:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
'''Link to article:''' [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html<br />
<br />
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/<br />
<br />
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)<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
User777<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth<br />
<br />
Assignment #1 – Neutral Point of View <br />
Class user: user777<br />
Wiki user: user55462*<br />
February 12th, 2013<br />
Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
AaronEttl<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment1.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 16:38, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Maria Paz Jurado<br />
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
* http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobierno_abierto<br />
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Paz_Jurado_-_Assignment_1.docx<br />
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 17:19, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
Milenagrado<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assigment_1.doc<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Rebekahjudson<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonassignment1.rtf<br />
***<br />
<br />
Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Joshua Henderson, joshywonder<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech<br />
Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_1_-_Joshua_Henderson_-_Joshywonder_-_Feb11.13.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
HGaylor:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hunter_Gaylor_Internet_Article_.docx</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&diff=9502Assignment 1 Submissions2013-02-12T10:46:05Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:<br />
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)<br />
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)<br />
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:<br />
<br />
* (Name or Pseudonym)<br />
<br />
* (Link to rule)<br />
<br />
* (Link to article)<br />
<br />
* (Link to your submitted report)<br />
<br />
[[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 09:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)<br />
******<br />
<br />
Mattyh (Matthew Haney)<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Third_Reich<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matt_Haney_-_Assignment_1%2C_02102013.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Admits<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment1.doc<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
Dear Alice<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_1_(Dear_Alice).docx<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 15:42, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
'''Initials In Name:''' TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
<br />
'''Pseudonym:''' interesting comments<br />
[[<br />
'''Link to rule:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]]<br />
<br />
'''Link to article:''' [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html<br />
<br />
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/<br />
<br />
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)<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
User777<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth<br />
<br />
Assignment #1 – Neutral Point of View <br />
Class user: user777<br />
Wiki user: user55462*<br />
February 12th, 2013<br />
Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
AaronEttl<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment1.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 16:38, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Maria Paz Jurado<br />
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
* http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobierno_abierto<br />
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Paz_Jurado_-_Assignment_1.docx<br />
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 17:19, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
Milenagrado<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assigment_1.doc<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Rebekahjudson<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonassignment1.rtf<br />
***<br />
<br />
Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Joshua Henderson, joshywonder<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech<br />
Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_1_-_Joshua_Henderson_-_Joshywonder_-_Feb11.13.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
HGaylor:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hunter_Gaylor_Internet_Article_.docx</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&diff=9501Assignment 1 Submissions2013-02-12T10:44:29Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:<br />
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)<br />
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)<br />
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:<br />
<br />
* (Name or Pseudonym)<br />
<br />
* (Link to rule)<br />
<br />
* (Link to article)<br />
<br />
* (Link to your submitted report)<br />
<br />
[[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 09:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)<br />
******<br />
<br />
Mattyh (Matthew Haney)<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Third_Reich<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matt_Haney_-_Assignment_1%2C_02102013.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Admits<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment1.doc<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
Dear Alice<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_1_(Dear_Alice).docx<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 15:42, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
'''Initials In Name:''' TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
<br />
'''Pseudonym:''' interesting comments<br />
<br />
'''Link to rule:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
'''Link to article:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html<br />
<br />
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/<br />
<br />
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)<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
User777<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth<br />
<br />
Assignment #1 – Neutral Point of View <br />
Class user: user777<br />
Wiki user: user55462*<br />
February 12th, 2013<br />
Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
AaronEttl<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment1.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 16:38, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Maria Paz Jurado<br />
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
* http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobierno_abierto<br />
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Paz_Jurado_-_Assignment_1.docx<br />
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 17:19, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
Milenagrado<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assigment_1.doc<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Rebekahjudson<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonassignment1.rtf<br />
***<br />
<br />
Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Joshua Henderson, joshywonder<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech<br />
Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_1_-_Joshua_Henderson_-_Joshywonder_-_Feb11.13.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
HGaylor:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hunter_Gaylor_Internet_Article_.docx</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&diff=9500Assignment 1 Submissions2013-02-12T10:43:44Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:<br />
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)<br />
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)<br />
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:<br />
<br />
* (Name or Pseudonym)<br />
<br />
* (Link to rule)<br />
<br />
* (Link to article)<br />
<br />
* (Link to your submitted report)<br />
<br />
[[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 09:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)<br />
******<br />
<br />
Mattyh (Matthew Haney)<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Third_Reich<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matt_Haney_-_Assignment_1%2C_02102013.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Admits<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment1.doc<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
Dear Alice<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_1_(Dear_Alice).docx<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 15:42, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Initials In Name: TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: interesting comments<br />
<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html<br />
<br />
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/<br />
<br />
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)<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
User777<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth<br />
<br />
Assignment #1 – Neutral Point of View <br />
Class user: user777<br />
Wiki user: user55462*<br />
February 12th, 2013<br />
Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
AaronEttl<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment1.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 16:38, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Maria Paz Jurado<br />
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
* http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobierno_abierto<br />
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Paz_Jurado_-_Assignment_1.docx<br />
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 17:19, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
Milenagrado<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assigment_1.doc<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Rebekahjudson<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonassignment1.rtf<br />
***<br />
<br />
Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Joshua Henderson, joshywonder<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech<br />
Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_1_-_Joshua_Henderson_-_Joshywonder_-_Feb11.13.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
HGaylor:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hunter_Gaylor_Internet_Article_.docx</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&diff=9499Assignment 1 Submissions2013-02-12T10:43:16Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:<br />
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)<br />
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)<br />
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:<br />
<br />
* (Name or Pseudonym)<br />
<br />
* (Link to rule)<br />
<br />
* (Link to article)<br />
<br />
* (Link to your submitted report)<br />
<br />
[[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 09:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)<br />
******<br />
<br />
Mattyh (Matthew Haney)<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Third_Reich<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matt_Haney_-_Assignment_1%2C_02102013.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Admits<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment1.doc<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
Dear Alice<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_1_(Dear_Alice).docx<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 15:42, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Initials In Name: TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: interesting comments<br />
<br />
Link to rule: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]]<br />
<br />
Link to article: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html<br />
<br />
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/<br />
<br />
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)<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
User777<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth<br />
<br />
Assignment #1 – Neutral Point of View <br />
Class user: user777<br />
Wiki user: user55462*<br />
February 12th, 2013<br />
Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
AaronEttl<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment1.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 16:38, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Maria Paz Jurado<br />
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
* http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobierno_abierto<br />
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Paz_Jurado_-_Assignment_1.docx<br />
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 17:19, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
Milenagrado<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assigment_1.doc<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Rebekahjudson<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonassignment1.rtf<br />
***<br />
<br />
Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Joshua Henderson, joshywonder<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech<br />
Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_1_-_Joshua_Henderson_-_Joshywonder_-_Feb11.13.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
HGaylor:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hunter_Gaylor_Internet_Article_.docx</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&diff=9498Assignment 1 Submissions2013-02-12T10:42:10Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:<br />
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)<br />
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)<br />
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:<br />
<br />
* (Name or Pseudonym)<br />
<br />
* (Link to rule)<br />
<br />
* (Link to article)<br />
<br />
* (Link to your submitted report)<br />
<br />
[[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 09:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)<br />
******<br />
<br />
Mattyh (Matthew Haney)<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Third_Reich<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matt_Haney_-_Assignment_1%2C_02102013.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Admits<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment1.doc<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
Dear Alice<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_1_(Dear_Alice).docx<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 15:42, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Initials In Name: TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: interesting comments<br />
<br />
Link to rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]<br />
<br />
Link to article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html<br />
<br />
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/<br />
<br />
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)<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
User777<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth<br />
<br />
Assignment #1 – Neutral Point of View <br />
Class user: user777<br />
Wiki user: user55462*<br />
February 12th, 2013<br />
Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
AaronEttl<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment1.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 16:38, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Maria Paz Jurado<br />
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
* http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobierno_abierto<br />
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Paz_Jurado_-_Assignment_1.docx<br />
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 17:19, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
Milenagrado<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assigment_1.doc<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Rebekahjudson<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonassignment1.rtf<br />
***<br />
<br />
Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Joshua Henderson, joshywonder<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech<br />
Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_1_-_Joshua_Henderson_-_Joshywonder_-_Feb11.13.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
HGaylor:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hunter_Gaylor_Internet_Article_.docx</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Assignment_1_Submissions&diff=9497Assignment 1 Submissions2013-02-12T10:32:13Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AssignmentCal}}<br />
<br />
===Submission Instructions===<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:<br />
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)<br />
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)<br />
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)<br />
<br />
If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]<br />
<br />
===Submissions===<br />
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:<br />
<br />
* (Name or Pseudonym)<br />
<br />
* (Link to rule)<br />
<br />
* (Link to article)<br />
<br />
* (Link to your submitted report)<br />
<br />
[[User:Jeff Hermes|Jeff Hermes]] 09:44, 7 February 2013 (EST)<br />
******<br />
<br />
Mattyh (Matthew Haney)<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Third_Reich<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Matt_Haney_-_Assignment_1%2C_02102013.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Admits<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment1.doc<br />
<br />
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 00:10, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
Dear Alice<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Extension_School<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Assignment_1_(Dear_Alice).docx<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 15:42, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Initials In Name: TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
<br />
Pseudonym: interesting comments<br />
<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html<br />
<br />
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/<br />
<br />
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)<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
User777<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth<br />
<br />
Assignment #1 – Neutral Point of View <br />
Class user: user777<br />
Wiki user: user55462*<br />
February 12th, 2013<br />
Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
AaronEttl<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing<br />
<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Assignment1.docx<br />
<br />
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 16:38, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Maria Paz Jurado<br />
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
* http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobierno_abierto<br />
* http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Paz_Jurado_-_Assignment_1.docx<br />
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 17:19, 11 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
***<br />
Milenagrado<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assigment_1.doc<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Rebekahjudson<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin<br />
*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Judsonassignment1.rtf<br />
***<br />
<br />
Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Joshua Henderson, joshywonder<br />
Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research<br />
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech<br />
Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_1_-_Joshua_Henderson_-_Joshywonder_-_Feb11.13.docx<br />
<br />
***<br />
HGaylor:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument<br />
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Hunter_Gaylor_Internet_Article_.docx</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=A_Series_of_Tubes:_Infrastructure,_Broadband,_and_Baseline_Content_Control&diff=9453A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control2013-02-10T21:14:24Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Assignment 1 */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''February 12'''<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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)]<br />
<br />
* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]<br />
<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]<br />
<br />
* Dawn Nunziato, ''Virtual Freedom'' (Chs. 1 & 7) (''pending'')<br />
<br />
* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Assignment 1 ==<br />
<br />
[[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]].<br />
<br />
TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
Assignment #1<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Neutral Point of View has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''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. <br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
The Neutral Point of View allows for the advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
No Original Research! 2013. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-liberal/2013/01/no-original-research-2454120.html<br />
<br />
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/<br />
<br />
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)<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:14, 10 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
Weekly Response by TAG<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
*****<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 20:27, 8 February 2013 (EST)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=A_Series_of_Tubes:_Infrastructure,_Broadband,_and_Baseline_Content_Control&diff=9449A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control2013-02-08T19:34:41Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Assignment 1 */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''February 12'''<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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)]<br />
<br />
* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]<br />
<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]<br />
<br />
* Dawn Nunziato, ''Virtual Freedom'' (Chs. 1 & 7) (''pending'')<br />
<br />
* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Assignment 1 ==<br />
<br />
[[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]].<br />
<br />
TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
Assignment #1<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
Net Neutrality, also referred to as Network Neutrality or Internet Neutrality, deals with creating and maintaining a neutral internet. This term maintains the view that internet and internet circulation should be treated equally. That is, the concept of discrimination or charging contrarily is non-existent (Raman 2011). The evolvement of the internet continued on December 21, 2010, as the F.C.C. approved a compromise that involved both sectors of the internet, one, for land line internet providers and the other for, the now popular, wireless internet (WIFI) (Net Neutrality 2010). The vote resulted in 3 to 2, with Democratic representatives approving it and the Republican representatives rejecting it (Net Neutrality 2010). <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
Net Neutrality 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 modernizations. The purpose of this will be for implementing satisfactorily lucrative to partake in structure, upholding and expansion of unrestricted internet (Johari. n.d.) .<br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Net Neutrality has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''The End to end principal:''' This is a principal created to distinguish the communications system at the end of each internet interaction (Kempf 2004). <br />
<br />
'''Data Discrimination:''' In order for an internet connection, or otherwise network to uphold neutral and impartial, the internet user (customer) must not be concerned in the choosing of provider. This would prevent the customer of having the choice of switching from provider to another (Robertson 2007). <br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
The Net Neutrality Rule 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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
Net Neutrality allows for an advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
Net Neutrality. n.d. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/<br />
timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html<br />
<br />
Raman, Manikandan. January 3, 2011. What Is Net Neutrality? What Does This Mean To You? http://www.ibtimes.com/what-net-neutrality-what-does-mean-you-252523 <br />
<br />
Ramesh Johari. n.d. What Is Net Neutrality and Why Does It Matter? http://engineering.stanford.edu/research/ate/johari<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
Weekly Response by TAG<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=A_Series_of_Tubes:_Infrastructure,_Broadband,_and_Baseline_Content_Control&diff=9448A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control2013-02-08T19:02:18Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Assignment 1 */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''February 12'''<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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)]<br />
<br />
* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]<br />
<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]<br />
<br />
* Dawn Nunziato, ''Virtual Freedom'' (Chs. 1 & 7) (''pending'')<br />
<br />
* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Assignment 1 ==<br />
<br />
[[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]].<br />
<br />
TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
Assignment #1<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
Net Neutrality, also referred to as Network Neutrality or Internet Neutrality, deals with creating and maintaining a neutral internet. This term maintains the view that internet and internet circulation should be treated equally. That is, the concept of discrimination or charging contrarily is non-existent (Raman 2011). The evolvement of the internet continued on December 21, 2010, as the F.C.C. approved a compromise that involved both sectors of the internet, one, for land line internet providers and the other for, the now popular, wireless internet (WIFI) (Net Neutrality 2010). The vote resulted in 3 to 2, with Democratic representatives approving it and the Republican representatives rejecting it (Net Neutrality 2010). <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
Net Neutrality 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 modernizations. The purpose of this will be for implementing satisfactorily lucrative to partake in structure, upholding and expansion of unrestricted internet (Johari. n.d.) .<br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Net Neutrality has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''The End to end principal:''' This is a principal created to distinguish the communications system at the end of each internet interaction (Kempf 2004). <br />
<br />
'''Data Discrimination:''' In order for an internet connection, or otherwise network to uphold neutral and impartial, the internet user (customer) must not be concerned in the choosing of provider. This would prevent the customer of having the choice of switching from provider to another (Robertson 2007). <br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
<br />
The Net Neutrality Rule 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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
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. <br />
<br />
'''How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way?''' <br />
<br />
Net Neutrality allows for an advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
<br />
'''Why is it important for Wikipedia?'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
'''Bibliography'''<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
Net Neutrality. n.d. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/<br />
timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html<br />
<br />
Raman, Manikandan. January 3, 2011. What Is Net Neutrality? What Does This Mean To You? http://www.ibtimes.com/what-net-neutrality-what-does-mean-you-252523 <br />
<br />
Ramesh Johari. n.d. What Is Net Neutrality and Why Does It Matter? http://engineering.stanford.edu/research/ate/johari<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
Weekly Response by TAG<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=A_Series_of_Tubes:_Infrastructure,_Broadband,_and_Baseline_Content_Control&diff=9447A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control2013-02-08T19:01:19Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Assignment 1 */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''February 12'''<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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)]<br />
<br />
* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]<br />
<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]<br />
<br />
* Dawn Nunziato, ''Virtual Freedom'' (Chs. 1 & 7) (''pending'')<br />
<br />
* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Assignment 1 ==<br />
<br />
[[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]].<br />
<br />
TAG Student ID#10789842<br />
Assignment #1<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What the rule is?''' <br />
<br />
Net Neutrality, also referred to as Network Neutrality or Internet Neutrality, deals with creating and maintaining a neutral internet. This term maintains the view that internet and internet circulation should be treated equally. That is, the concept of discrimination or charging contrarily is non-existent (Raman 2011). The evolvement of the internet continued on December 21, 2010, as the F.C.C. approved a compromise that involved both sectors of the internet, one, for land line internet providers and the other for, the now popular, wireless internet (WIFI) (Net Neutrality 2010). The vote resulted in 3 to 2, with Democratic representatives approving it and the Republican representatives rejecting it (Net Neutrality 2010). <br />
<br />
'''Why this matters?'''<br />
<br />
Net Neutrality 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 modernizations. The purpose of this will be for implementing satisfactorily lucrative to partake in structure, upholding and expansion of unrestricted internet (Johari. n.d.) .<br />
<br />
'''How it relates to other rules, and comments on the details/subsections of the rule.'''<br />
<br />
Net Neutrality has several related issues. Two examples of this are:<br />
<br />
'''The End to end principal:''' This is a principal created to distinguish the communications system at the end of each internet interaction (Kempf 2004). <br />
<br />
'''Data Discrimination:''' In order for an internet connection, or otherwise network to uphold neutral and impartial, the internet user (customer) must not be concerned in the choosing of provider. This would prevent the customer of having the choice of switching from provider to another (Robertson 2007). <br />
<br />
'''What is the article you chose?''' <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation<br />
<br />
'''Why you chose it?''' <br />
<br />
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:<br />
- The Transistor Radio<br />
- Pocket Calculators<br />
- Mobile Phones<br />
<br />
'''What edits you made?''' <br />
The edit I made was by adding the example of the pocket calculator, which was a form of disruptive innovation.<br />
<br />
[[File:LSTUEdit]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Did users made edits in response?'''<br />
None<br />
<br />
'''Rule for the article: How the rule played out in practice (if it did)'''<br />
The Net Neutrality Rule 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.<br />
Rule for the community: How you think the rule plays a role in maintaining Wikipedia. <br />
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. <br />
How does it benefit/harm the Wikipedia community in any way? <br />
Net Neutrality allows for an advancement of society, technology, and innovations.<br />
Why is it important for Wikipedia?<br />
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.<br />
Bibliography<br />
<br />
Kempf, J. March 2004. The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:<br />
Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3724.txt<br />
<br />
Net Neutrality. n.d. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/<br />
timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html<br />
<br />
Raman, Manikandan. January 3, 2011. What Is Net Neutrality? What Does This Mean To You? http://www.ibtimes.com/what-net-neutrality-what-does-mean-you-252523 <br />
<br />
Ramesh Johari. n.d. What Is Net Neutrality and Why Does It Matter? http://engineering.stanford.edu/research/ate/johari<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
Weekly Response by TAG<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=A_Series_of_Tubes:_Infrastructure,_Broadband,_and_Baseline_Content_Control&diff=9424A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control2013-02-06T11:19:39Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''February 12'''<br />
<br />
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. 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?<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
* [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)]<br />
<br />
* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]<br />
<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]<br />
<br />
* Dawn Nunziato, ''Virtual Freedom'' (Ch. 1) (''pending'')<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]<br />
<br />
* Dawn Nunziato, ''Virtual Freedom'' (Ch. 7) (''pending'')<br />
<br />
* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Assignment 1 ==<br />
<br />
[[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]].<br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
Weekly Response by TAG<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Paradigms_for_Studying_the_Internet&diff=9375Paradigms for Studying the Internet2013-01-31T15:54:05Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''February 5'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7 - focus on "A Dot's Life")]<br />
<br />
* [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'')]<br />
<br />
* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'', (Chapters 1 and 4 only)]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (pp. 379-396)]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]<br />
<br />
* [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)]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
Prepared by TAG<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Paradigms_for_Studying_the_Internet&diff=9374Paradigms for Studying the Internet2013-01-31T10:06:21Z<p>Interestingcomments: /* Class Discussion */ TAG</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ClassCalendar}}<br />
<br />
'''February 5'''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 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.<br />
<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
== Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7 - focus on "A Dot's Life")]<br />
<br />
* [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'')]<br />
<br />
* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'', (Chapters 1 and 4 only)]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (pp. 379-396)]<br />
<br />
* [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)<br />
<br />
== Optional Readings ==<br />
<br />
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]<br />
<br />
* [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)]<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Videos Watched in Class ==<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
== Class Discussion ==<br />
<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><br />
<br />
Prepared by TAG<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Technologies_of_Politics_and_Control_talk:Community_portal&diff=9309Technologies of Politics and Control talk:Community portal2013-01-28T18:22:27Z<p>Interestingcomments: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
1. There has been several significant economic changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
2. There has been several significant political changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
Change: Access to information online about freedoms in the democracies around the world<br />
<br />
New Opportunity: In the Middle East this was a major contributing factor in the Arab Spring, to bring and implement change.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
3. There has been several significant social changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
Change: Access to social media sites has fundamentally changed the way people interact with each other<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
4. There has been several significant cultural changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
Change: Access to education online or education in general for both genders<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 13:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Technologies_of_Politics_and_Control_talk:Community_portal&diff=9308Technologies of Politics and Control talk:Community portal2013-01-28T18:21:56Z<p>Interestingcomments: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
1. There has been several significant economic changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
2. There has been several significant political changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
Change: Access to information online about freedoms in the democracies around the world<br />
<br />
New Opportunity: In the Middle East this was a major contributing factor in the Arab Spring, to bring and implement change.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
3. There has been several significant social changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
Change: Access to social media sites has fundamentally changed the way people interact with each other<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
4. There has been several significant cultural changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
Change: Access to education online or education in general for both genders<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 13:21, 28 January 2013 (EST)</div>Interestingcommentshttps://cyber.harvard.edu/is2013/?title=Technologies_of_Politics_and_Control_talk:Community_portal&diff=9307Technologies of Politics and Control talk:Community portal2013-01-28T18:19:07Z<p>Interestingcomments: TG Submition</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
1. There has been several significant economic changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
2. There has been several significant political changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
Change: Access to information online about freedoms in the democracies around the world<br />
<br />
New Opportunity: In the Middle East this was a major contributing factor in the Arab Spring, to bring and implement change.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
3. There has been several significant social changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
Change: Access to social media sites has fundamentally changed the way people interact with each other<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
4. There has been several significant cultural changes associated with internet and digital technologies which has created both new opportunities and new challenges.<br />
<br />
Change: Access to education online or education in general for both genders<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.</div>Interestingcomments