Paradigms for Studying the Internet: Difference between revisions

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (1 revision: Content from IS2013 wiki.)
 
 
(67 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ClassCalendar}}
{{ClassCalendar}}


'''February 5'''
'''February 4'''


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


This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments. The second hour of the class will focus on the [[Final Project|final project]] for the class, where we will discuss the research prompt, talk about some successful projects from prior years, and plot out the deadlines for the rest of the semester.
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 applying these concepts to Wikipedia, and teeing up the [[Final Project|final project]] for the class, where we will discuss the research prompt, talk about some successful projects from prior years, and plot out the deadlines for the rest of the semester.
 
'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2014/File:Paradigms_for_Studying_the_Internet.pdf Download slides from this week's class]'''


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


<onlyinclude>
<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
== Readings ==


* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7 - focus on "A Dot's Life")]
; Mechanisms of control
 
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0,'' Chapter 7] (read intro, "A Dot's Life," and "On Governments and Ways to Regulate")
 
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (read 1-3 and 9-22)
 
* [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)
 
; The effects of control


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


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


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


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


== Optional Readings ==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbYQ0AVVBGU Jeffrey Lin, Play Nice: the Science and Behavior of Online Games] (Focus on 0:00-27:17. It's a long video, but an interesting exploration of how one company uses game design to regulate griefing and other online bad behavior. Some of the discussed language is NSFW.)


* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]
* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/ Megan Garber, The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?, Nieman Journalism Lab]


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


</onlyinclude>
</onlyinclude>
== Assignment 1 ==
== Assignment 1 ==


Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 12th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].
Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 11th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].


== Videos Watched in Class ==
== Videos Watched in Class ==


== Links ==
== Links ==
For those of you with a stomach for south park, here is funny episode about when kyle accepts an iTunes agreement without first reading it...
Herdict http://www.herdict.org
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad
 
[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 19:03, 5 February 2013 (EST)
Info on DMCA:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
 
Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org
 
Chilling Effects background info on DMCA and copyright law: http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/
 
IRB is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board
 
Google flu trends: http://www.google.org/flutrends/us/#US
 
Facebook as disease? http://io9.com/researchers-predict-facebook-will-die-out-like-a-disea-1506843703
 
Facebook's to the Princeton article:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10594490/Facebook-parodies-Princetons-bubonic-plague-study.html
 
Berkman's privacy tools project:  http://privacytools.seas.harvard.edu/
 
Facebook get out the vote effort:  http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506496/how-facebooks-plans-could-affect-the-election/
 
"Walled Garden": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform
 
Amazon Kindle 1984 story:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
 
reddit: http://www.reddit.com
 
Today I Learned (TIL) subreddit:  http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/
 
Tor: https://www.torproject.org
 
A wikipedia article explaining the rules for translating english articles into other languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translate_us
 
Wikimedia Foundation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home


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


Prepared by TAG
<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:Andy|Andy]] 11:49, 8 November 2013 (EST)</div>
 
 
----
 
 
Therefore, to maintain order, ensure efficient government, and improve social justice, kings, presidents, and prime ministers must be the chief architect of their country's internet code.  They must be multi-skilled or have the support of a talented and scholarly team.
 
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:39, 31 January 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
It seems lots more fun to watch than just read:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7UlYTFKFqY
 
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 03:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)
 
:Zittrain's talks are always a lot of fun! But we chose the two chapters in order to focus on a few of the specific things we'd like to dive into for this class. His book talk is much more general. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 08:46, 2 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
The Zittrain chapters give a good overview of how the Internet had been developed up to circa 2008, but there have been some significant changes--and possible reversals of the "generative" model since that time.  The increasing role of SaaS platforms, centralized APIs, and operating platforms with a much more pervasive level of control relative to older operating systems (e.g., IOS, Android, and social networking platforms like the Facebook developer platform) have reintroduced an aspect of large, single-point-of-failure, commercially controlled systems. Whereas Cluetrain envisioned a future of "small pieces loosely joined," the Internet of today might be better described as "lots of small pieces largely dependent on a few large, commercially-controlled pieces."  These few large pieces raise concerns in terms of limiting the potential for innovation, negotiation with gatekeepers (which, as rightly discussed in the Zittrain chapters, was one of the things that killed innovation on earlier mobile platforms) and the shifting of business opportunities across the market from creators to platform owners. Will there be another wave of generative platforms that will wear down the the current trend to centralization, and if not, how can we best ensure continuous innovation on the Internet?
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:27, 3 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
:At an [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2014/02/defending_an_unowned_internet event last night] Prof. Zittrain mentioned another possible enclosure movement for generativity I hadn't thought of before: many web services are finding themselves at the receiving end of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDoS#Distributed_attack DDoS Attacks] for one reason or another. As a result, services are moving from their own servers capable of withstanding such attacks - primarily [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services Amazon Web Services], but there are a few others as well. If all of the Internet moves to just one of three or four web servers, that gives those servers tremendous power to cut off something they may not like. That's a form of "contingent generativity" that could cut off a lot of the social good that both Zittrain and Benkler flag in their articles. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:28, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
Coming off of last week's reading (specifically John Perry Barlow's "A Declaration of Independence of the Internet"), I found danah boyd's essay "White Flight in Networked Publics?" particularly interesting. Even before reading boyd's piece, Barlow's "Declaration" seems hilariously naive in 2014, though I can certainly appreciate the utopian vision it's based on. The idea that the world that we exist in (the physical reality described by Orin Kerr) won't intrude on the virtual world of the Internet seems impossible. (Did they really not believe that the best AND worst parts of us would be present?) The role of the Internet in our everyday social lives has, of course, increased exponentially since 1996, so it only makes sense that who we are and how we behave in the physical world will translate to equivalent behavior on the Internet. The ways in which behavior on the Internet effects people in the physical reality of their lives (particularly when it comes to harassment, threatening behavior, etc.) lends a great sense of urgency to figuring out how we should think about the Internet and the law.
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:18, 3 February 2014 (EST)
 
:Both boyd and Hargittai use a lot of pre-Internet scholarship in their writings for this course - a nice reminder that new technology does not necessarily mean new approaches to scholarship. But as Benkler notes, it is not that we are simply repeating the 20th century with shinier objects. There is something different about the way that information travels today that changes the ecology of information and cultural production. We can either adopt that change or legislate/architect it away. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:36, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
I agree with Ichu's remarks about the need to somehow maintain order and to do so utilizing a talented and scholarly task force.  My question would then be how this team would be selected/elected?  Another potential issue would be how to ensure justice in a system where internet code is controlled by one's government or sole government official/king/president?  In our reading by Orin Kerr, he highlights how these conflicting external and internal perspectives on the internet add fuel to the problem of internet law.  The internet has two personalities in its vast internal cyberspace and also in acting as a physical network; striking a balance between the two and incorporating both identities into a legal system continues to evade and frustrate authorities.
 
In response to Megan Garber's reading on Wikipedia, I find that Wikipedia often does not get the credit or praise it deserves.  Admittedly, no online community-built encyclopedia can be fool-proof, but the reason why Wikipedia has prevailed is its relative reliability.  I have used the site extensively and it has provided me with a quick summary of events on a particular debate or issue.  Garber's reasons for Wikipedia's success are logical in that familiarity is the cornerstone for many website's success rates.  The ease of navigating the site and the non-committal method of editing or adding to the work encourages more users to contribute.  I would also argue that, beyond the cultural/socio-economic/racial influences that cause users to migrate from site to site (such as from myspace to facebook), the constantly changing platform of facebook has led many to stray from the site.  This is difficult to prove, of course, but when I had a Facebook account I recall many complaints from my peers about all of the changes that kept happening occurring on the site.  It seemed that every week we had to ajust to a new feature or re-learn how to navigate.  Accordingly with Garber's theory, the "familiarity" factor was diminishing for users and people tend to resist change especially on a site that they have grown accustomed to.
 
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 04:08, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
I was also interested in Megan Garber's point that the authorless structure of Wikipedia lowers the pressure of contributing. It certainly makes sense to me (and, I'm sure, to anyone who has read the comment section of any news article or blog post ever written...) that anonymity can encourage participation. When there's lower pressure to perform and you aren't faced with high stakes when you get involved, it's easier to bring yourself to contribute. This seems to tie in to Zittrain's point about the success of Wikipedia: it developed somewhat un-self-consciously and organically, rather than as a top-down "knowledge project" initiated by large universities. Oversight of the development of new technologies would presumably put a damper on this type of growth at any and all levels. I think this is nicely addressed by Zittrain's point that we're not looking at choosing between technology and non-technology, but a hierarchy and polyarchy.
 
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:48, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
Lawrence Lessig’s article focuses on liberty in Cyberspace and how various modes of regulation effect that liberty.  He focuses on four different ways that the web can be regulated,1)the Law, 2)social norms, 3) the market, and 4)architecture.  Lessing tries to get us to think differently, more critically, about different mechanisms that can lead to restriction of freedom on the Web.
 
For instance, with the architecture of the Web, Lessing asserts that the written code of programs inherently can either provide more freedom, or restrict freedom, and access.
And when it comes to the law, Lessing points out that “The efficient answer may well be unjust.” He gives an example of the law requiring life sentences for stealing car radios.
 
We all would probably agree that that is overboard and excessive. And, with that absurdity planted in our minds, Lessing then shows how a coder could easily put a restriction in the radios code that would make stealing the radio less desirable for thieves.  Which would in turn make it unnecessary for such a draconian law of life sentences for car radio thieves.
This example makes me think about Aaron Swartz, a friend of Lessigs, whom took his own life in 2013. Aaron was prodigy kid who helped create RSS feed, and Reddit at a young age. He later became what you might call an internet activist, and made enemies in the federal government for some hacking activities.  He was eventually charged with multiple felonies by the Federal government for hacking MIT’s JSTOR server.
Lessing talks about how law and code can either liberate or restrict the Internet.
I believe Swartz’s case shows how the MIT/JSTOR rules of access, restricted information on the Web, and how federal laws were excessive and restricted innovation and liberty for Web users.  And lastly, Swartz’s case shows how one coder tried to use hacktivism, to liberate information on the web.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 12:58, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
I found the essay I found danah boyd's essay "White Flight in Networked Publics?" both interesting and reflective of what I have witnessed. In particular, I thought the comment that “Subculturally identified teens appeared more frequently draw to MySapce while more mainstream teens tended towards Facebook,” was especially true. We may pride ourselves on a strong sense of individualism, but remnants of the herd mentality are always present. MySpace simply offers a way to share interests that are different and more “specialized” than Facebook. I could not help but wonder if the trend is continuing with an exodus from Facebook. From a personal observation, I’ve noticed that usage among many 16-22 year olds on Facebook is dropping. The pages may still be up with random notices but the real communication and new communities are being centered on Twitter. I’m not sure if this is a spike, a trend or a progression to escape a Mainstream Facebook with parental oversight. What may be of more concern is that Twitter allows the segregation of subcultures and races more easily than previous options. [[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 14:09, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
I have been following the most recent work of Lawrence Lessig for about a year, so it’s exciting to read “Code 2.0” and make connections between that and his work on copyright law, amateur creativity, Creative Commons, etc. 
By providing some background on the US government’s inclination towards “indirect” regulation, Lessig paints a frightening picture of the extent to which the state can control entities for its own benefit. The case of New York v. US focuses on the question of indirection and the states, which disallows the federal government from co-opting the states for its own ends. In effect, this case establishes that the government must take responsibility for its actions and remain transparent in its interactions with the states. My question is, however, why isn’t there such precedent for indirection and the American people?
Rust v. Sullivan is a prime example of the government’s indirect regulation of its citizens. By ordering doctors, who work in government-funded clinics, to discourage the use of abortion as a family planning method, the Reagan administration furthered its aim to reduce the incidence of abortion. The lack of transparency of the government, in using doctors to discourage their patients from obtaining abortions, is most disturbing. A patient has no way to discern the state’s motives, which masquerade behind the advice of a medical professional.
A somewhat similar issue occurred (and continues to occur) in the deeding of land prior to 1948. Such deeds prevented the property covered by that deed from being sold to people of a particular race. While this law is no more, its remnants are still very much alive in the US today. As Lessig explained, communities remained segregated by “a thousand tiny inconveniences of architecture and zoning…  highways without easy crossings were placed between communities… railroad tracks were used to divide.”  Despite the fact that integration is made difficult by these subtle methods of control, the most troubling part of this it is so very challenging to see the link between the regulation and its consequence. The government’s lack of transparency, while being a rather genius way to accomplish their own goals, is what is so threatening to our liberty. Lessig ends by suggesting that cyberspace is a new terrain in which the government can wield power inconspicuously and endanger our freedom.
 
[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 14:50, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
IMPROVING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ACCELERATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Traditionally, colleges and universities limit the number of students admitted into their institutions primarily due to resource constraints.  But with the internet, everyone can have access to higher education, regardless of their prior academic failures.
And higher education can even be made almost free!  This brings liberty and freedom to the weak and poor.  Economic progress can be accelerated.  Is this possible?  Is this desirable?
 
 
WHY THE GOVERNMENT MUST OWN THE COUNTRY'S INTERNET BACKBONE
 
In the Philippines, the internet backbone is mainly owned and operated by profit-oriented private corporations.  Hence, the poor has no access to the internet.  With over 40% of the population, or 40 million Filipinos in poverty, and internet infrastructure in most schools are grossly inadequate or absent, only the government can remedy the situation by owning a substantial part of the country's internet backbone.  Profit opportunities can still exist for corporations if there are two separate internet backbone:  one solely for government administration and education, and the other for private entertainment and commerce.
 
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:32, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
Wikipedia is offered in other languages, which is a feature offered almost from inception. How does wikipedia get around the challenge when (i.e.) an English and a German wikipedia page on the same subject feature different citations, or when one page has more depth than the other? This would make a great deal of knowledge inaccessible to people who don't speak the language. Does monolingualism emerge as a barrier for Wikipedia?
 
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 15:43, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 
 
----
 
 
I could not agree more with Ichua. Your point of colleges and universities being somewhat limited due to resource constraints makes me think of tech and educational revolutionaries such as Salman Khan and his YouTube channel. Although his efforts are not mainstream yet, it is a good example of  how the internet could bring about freedom, social justice, economic improvement, and access to higher education to the weak and poor. The same goes with "edX" and other disruptive technologies that could very well contribute to knowledge economies now and in the future.
 
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:42, 4 February 2014 (EST)


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


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


**********


The very wording of this section was a paradigm. The most interesting article was that of the interview about conflicts in the computer and internet community. The other articles required for class helped seed that information into more prosperity. With voice recognition, the interpretation of citation, and the understanding that there is more to a word that its intendor: the processor. What order deserved my attention as a document can be printed, scanned, faxed, printed then faxed et cetera. Johnathan Merkwan[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:57, 4 February 2013 (EST)
An introduction into a "Dots" life brings scrutiny on the constructs of regulation through the market, architecture, law and social norms. As we engage in our conversations dealing with cyberspace, it will be interesting to see which one of the four areas outlined will prove to be the most critical-or will they all hold equal weight in the outcome of how we grow as a society online?
**********


I found Lessig's piece quite interesting regarding regulatory constraints and the role that norms play in achieving regulation. Specifically, I found that his point stating that sometimes norms preclude technological changes and vice versa. Currently, the music industry is failing at copyright regulation as torrents and peer to peer networks share various media types over the web. I believe that as there is greater institutionalization from companies like Amazon, Apple (iTunes), and other online media outlets, the wide low cost provision of easily accessible media will cause a shift in norms leading to decreased illegal media downloads. Zittrain makes some very thought provoking points regarding "generativity". Calling for less constraining base models and frameworks for innovation, Zittrain discusses the idea of linking online identities to those in reality as a way to enforce copyright law. However, I don't think that users are ready for those ramifications. Take for example the immediate outrage and institution of legislation against employers and universities requesting Facebook passwords. While I personally don't agree with such requests either, it is clear that people are not ready to embrace that next shift even though it may lead to greater capabilities of the internet. Cybersecurity will be extremely contentious in the coming years as the internet and supporting frameworks continue to evolve, encompassing the capacity for innovation. The cloud is one centralized platform housing all sensitive information of its users which presents a great danger because the generativity of the web means that nothing is safe forever. Just look at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks; in a way Assange was acting as the protector of liberty in creating a forum for information. As the internet evolves, market concerns will increasingly become the driving factor of institutional innovation. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 18:07, 4 February 2013 (EST)
[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 15:51, 4 February 2014 (EST)


**
:I disagree that increased institutionalization online by companies like itunes and Amazon could shift norms towards discouraging illegal downloads. First, I doubt prices can go any lower than they are at now ($1.99 for popular songs; 99c and rarely 65c for less popular or older songs) for both the distributor (iTunes, Amazon, etc), the music companies, and the artists to make money. Second, being able to freely download makes economical sense for the downloaders - that's why they're doing so in the first place. As long as there are ways to freely download, there will be people who will do so.


:That's not to say I support shutting down p2p technology and torrent sites - I seriously think they have played a big role in the spread of knowledge for people who otherwise would not have access. As mentioned/suggested briefly in class, the solution may lie in changing  thinking and economic model of the entertainment industry.
----


--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 09:06, 11 February 2013 (EST)


*******
The multifaceted and ambiguous nature of the Internet along with its sheer size has presented a challenge for analysts, researchers, and governments alike to collect, study, organize, present and control data in a useful way. As Benkler, Zittrain, and Palfrey show you must understand how the infrastructure works, which they categorized into 3 main levels, otherwise it would not be possible to access what they need to monitor and regulate their own sphere of Internet.


Two separate but related thoughts.  
As Jonathan Zittrain expounds upon “the generative pattern” we see that even though having a sterile system like the iPhone or an enclosed “garden” like AOL has is benefits including in the security realm, not allowing an open platform stifles peoples creativity. Indeed Wikipedia would not work if generativity was not allowed.  


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


Facebook is a less generative platform than MySpace – at least in the cultural sense. Facebook’s architecture closes down “the capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions,” while MySpace encouraged a wide range of customization and personal expression. However, because MySpace was more generative, again in the cultural sense, people could be much more derogatory in their profiles. Race and class became far more apparent. As a result, the site earned a negative stigma and eventually drove “white flight.”
Even in the world of the Internet racism and ethnical divides took part in shaping how society socializes online. Students’ opinions of different socializing networks were full of stereotypical references insinuating that just as in the classroom,  
subcultures have existed and do exist today correlating how people relate to one another over the Internet.


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


So it’s a trade-off. Facebook doesn’t allow you to alter the layout of the site but you get the comfort of not seeing some unsightly profile and feeling uncomfortable. So I’m curious – generative systems might make artistic and personal expression easier, but too much generativity can, well, freak people out. Take Second Life. Once a blossoming virtual world where you could build or create anything, it soon gained the reputation of being a pornographic hub, and users fled. Now it’s all but shut down.
[[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:59, 4 February 2014 (EST)


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


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


*****


The diverse frameworks presented in the readings this week shed light on technological: networks, constraints, and structural considerations.  In the article ''What Things to Regulate'', the architecture examples illustrate metaphorical associations that I had not yet considered.  Many of us view architecture from a tangible perspective, directly correlated to concrete structures, such as houses, buildings, and landscapes. Understanding systems architecture in laymen terms, however, has always been challenging (for me) due to the complexity related to networking, routing, and stakeholder hand-offs.  Although I have worked with many IT Architects on unique consulting projects over the past few years, I have never truly understood the notion behind systems design.
I greatly appreciated Lawrence Lessig's invocation of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" in "What Things Regulate" because Mill's treatise on libertarian ideals speak to controversies over internet regulation, especially the concerns over free speech that we discussed last week and will undoubtedly continue discuss over the course of the semester. I believe that Mill's "harm principle," as illustrated in "On Liberty" speaks directly to these issues of censorship. I'm not a philosophy major, but as I interpret Mill's writing, individuals should only be limited in their expression if such expression poses direct harm to individuals. (This concept was hilariously depicted in an episode of "The Simpsons" entitled "Lisa on Ice.") According to Mill, I should be allowed to swing my fists up until the point that they make physical contact with your face.  


One of the key take-aways from the examples set forth in this article is the following: design alterations transform behaviors…whether significant or not.  In other words, even if a given process inevitably stays the same, design modifications impact perceptions, which ultimately shift reactions. Parking airplanes at gates farther away from the baggage claim area—causing passengers to walk more—creates less stress when waiting for luggage (even if the rate at which luggage arrives stays the same); putting a mirror in front of an elevator reduces complaints about the elevator’s speed (even when the speed stays the same); adding a basic ramp in front of a building provides access for everyone (even if all other structural aspects remain identical). Each of these illustrations is metaphorically correlated to the Internet and systems architecture. Laws/Policies change regulations; regulations can impact architectural designs across numerous frontiers in cyber space; and design modifications can substantially influence people’s behaviors.
Of course, the internet does not allow for physical contact, but Mill explicates that certain expressions do not require contact to cause harm. He gives the example of protestors who oppose price increases for corn; to castigate the corn dealer in print would not constitute harm, but to picket at his doorstep would. I believe that free speech on the internet is important, but undoubtedly, acts such as cyber bullying do seem to cause harm based on the groundwork that Mill provided [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 16:01, 4 February 2014 (EST)
----


The second insight that I would like to address in this week’s discussion is directly correlated to the MySpace-Facebook article, specifically focusing on the suburban illustration.  “Governmental agencies reduced investments in urban communities, depopulation lowered property values and shrunk the tax bases, and unemployment rose as jobs moved to the suburbs….Just as those who moved to the suburbs looked down upon those who remained in the cities, so too did Facebook users demean those on Myspace” (pgs. 31 and 34, respectively).  The analogies in this article are mind opening.  One may think that cyber space unites people of all backgrounds, because boarders and boundaries are less clear (at times).  However, the notion behind segregation in the cyber world is an interesting one to consider…it mirrors the real world in diverse ways.  What other online examples mirror the real world?  Where do virtual games fit (such as Second Life) when considering new realities?  Do most social network users escape realty through the use of online communication or do social networks bring individuals closer together?  What do others in class think about the metaphors presented in this article, specifically regarding segregation in cyber space? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 05:16, 5 February 2013 (EST)
Conceptually the internet and the regulatory framework that Lawrence Lessig presents must be viewed from an international context.  What is normative behavior in one country is not in another and can feed the digital inequality/divide further.  What is architecturally most beneficial does not always treat all economies the same.  Same is true for laws and market analysis - the internet as an international dialog. This international lense must be used to reconcile these 'regulatory' concepts.  The political debate between nations on acceptable behavior in physical space is certainly real in this space as well - what constitutes causing harm to a nation's infrastructure if that infrastructure and data exists largely in a cloud in another nation? [[User:Rstempfley|rgs]] 16:50, 4 February 2014 (EST)


*****


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


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


*****
Based on some of the points made here and in the readings, I have to admit that I think reform of all copyright is a necessity if the internet is ever going to have a chance to truly be free. I hope that the internet is eventually operated like the fashion industry. No copyright for the designs, only company brands can control whats inside their own brand. Everything else is free to all so it never inhibits the innovation. So many types of business would benefit from this structure including Music, Film, and even Video Games. I feel that some sort of UN agreement for the care of the main servers etc.. to keep the internet going and maintained should be the responsibility of all countries who participate in it. Without the freedoms that the internet used to allow, already becoming suffocating, it has and will continue to stifle it's very being like all other creative entities.[[User:TriciaBy|TriciaBy]] 17:25, 4 February 2014 (EST)
I enjoyed reading about social network articles and how these networks influence individuals in life. The concept of openness, alone, Facebook as an example brings ample views and ideas how people share their lives throughout the simple “public” concept as Internet. Social media is continually evolving and keeping individuals up to date well informed on that social media could offer thru secure and controlled experience. The main question arises is where the Internet is going and where it has been throughout the lenses of technological evolution and innovative experiments. Social networks continue to surround each of us, and continue to navigate the regulatory enterprise and practices around the world. Due to issues that Internet is altering the complex amounts of information, the social networks still come in a long perspective of academia and popular culture arenas. Is it still considers a “real world”? In my view that it’s the main criticism of social network via Internet. Is there a control and secure openness thru social media (Facebook, twitter)? How people interpret the information? I this there are ample questions that still retain the privacy control throughout the demographics of social media.  
[[User:User777|user777]] 13:08, 5 February 2013 (EST)




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


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


"While I am fully supportive of the need to combat intellectual piracy, specifically dealing with foreign rogue digital theft sites, legislation must not impede freedom of expression on the internet and online innovation. We must work to find an approach that protects content and the freedom of distribution and technology that is smart and targeted without stifling the innovators and entrepreneurs that make San Francisco and the Bay Area so vibrant."
Zittrain's point about "contingent generativity" is quite correct, but I would argue that the situation is not as bleak as he suggests, at least in this question. The industry as a whole, with the introduction of every new service or technology, is almost always moving from being more restrictive to being morel liberal. Certainly, more restrictive platforms often remain such (and all power to them given that their users value the convenience they provide over more generative freedom), but alternatives generally quickly follow suit in the free market. We now have a gradient of restrictiveness in most sectors, as exemplified by mobile operating systems with iOS being on the more restrictive end of the spectrum, Android on the other side, and Windows Phone somewhere in between, and I cannot think of a major consumer software or online service where a wide array of alternatives does not exist to suit everyone's needs. Do platforms following the "contingent generativity" model tend to be more popular? Perhaps, but only for as long as they are not handicapped by that contingency. As we've seen with the raise of Android or the raise and downfall of Firefox, when the small pockets of generative freedom lead to significant advances in technology or experience, many are quick to migrate to those products. The fact that the more restrictive platforms often catch up and recapture those users is, in my view, more indicative of the limits of generativity than anything else. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 16:22, 5 February 2014 (EST)
Nancy Peolosi February 2012 Letter to constituents regarding SOPA


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


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


******
THERE ARE GREATER SOCIAL ILLS WITH ONLINE GAMING OTHER THAN TOXIC BEHAVIOR


Addiction to online gaming is consuming valuable time.  I personally know of a Malaysian scholar who was so addicted to online gaming that he failed his 3rd year at university twice and had to leave with a big financial debt to the Singapore government.  Another two reports mentioned two separate online gamers who died, one after 1.5 days of non-stop gaming.  Are there any studies done showing how many hours per day an online gamer spends on playing online games?  And what amount of time spent would constitute an addiction to online games?


This is a tangent related to the tangent made in class on the readability of Terms of Services. I'm one of those who usually doesn't read Terms of Services, especially those not having to do with the bank. But the discussion raised my curiosity, so when I was considering setting up a tumblr account so I can participate with my friends, I stopped to read tumblr's Terms of Service, which is located here: http://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/terms_of_service
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:23, 8 February 2014 (EST)


Perhaps I'm lucky since tumblr does not fit into the examples made in class. Tumblr's Terms of Service is very readable and accessible, and Tumblr actually states that they deliberately made it so. If the legal text itself is still a bit too lofty, especially for younger visitors,  then Tumblr's summaries after each section will do the job as well.


Some parts are even humorous. Take for example the annotations for the section on Eligibilty: "You have to be at least 13 years old to use Tumblr. We're serious: it's a hard rule, based on U.S. federal and state legislation, even if you're 12.9 years old. If you're younger than 13, don't use Tumblr. Ask your parents for an Xbox or try books."
----


--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 03:37, 11 February 2013 (EST)


Danah Boyd’s article was really disappointing because he could have truly made it interesting and signficiant.  Not being a fan of either My Space or Facebook, at least until recently  for the latter as I feel it is a good medium to communicate with "Friends" in remote and/or far away places.  The article contained several foundation facts and helped me understand some of the differences, but not much more and continued to make the point over and over again with case studies that demonstrated the same points over and over again.
HOW CAN WE ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION POSTED IN WIKIPEDIA?


I feel Mr. (Ms?) Boyd should have added a lot more foundational information and perhaps not only argued the differences between the two social networks, but give his/her opinion and facts why.
Very misleading, biased and incorrect information have been posted on Wikipedia. Because of this it is unacceptable to quote or reference Wikipedia in professional peer-reviewed literature and graduate or undergraduate thesis reports.  However, this pose a major problem especially for our young people who use Wikipedia as a major source of information for their research on the internet.


******
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 15:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)
This is in response to [[Muromi's]] comments on the Tumblr [https://www.tumblr.com/login] Terms of Service [http://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/terms_of_service], but I promise to bring it back to our readings. I've been a long-term fan of Tumblr, and I can say that the Tumblr TOS is a reflection of the Tumblr experience. The contributors tend to be serious: CJ Chivers of the New York Times[http://cjchivers.com/]; Anthony De Rosa of Reuters [http://soupsoup.tumblr.com/]; informative: America's Test Kitchen [http://americastestkitchen.tumblr.com/]; but also playful: Sesame Street[http://sesamestreet.tumblr.com]. PR and Marketing, though in evidence, are done with an effort to integrate into the user community: The Economist[http://theeconomist.tumblr.com/]; LLBean [http://llbeanpr.tumblr.com/]; The Atlantic[http://theatlantic.tumblr.com/]; The New Yorker[http://newyorker.tumblr.com/].


Other contributors who show up on one's dashboard, and with whom one can interact directly by reblogging (a way of responding, but also of reposting) can start to feel like friends in a distinctly different way then the term ''friend'' is used by Facebook. There is, of course, a running joke among long-time users that 40% of one's followers are high school students from Japan, and occasionally a spam problem pops up. But generally the experience is one of openness, friendliness and creativity. The TOS is just one aspect of this, but it demonstrates how some thoughtfulness on the part of founders can go a long way to contributing to a positive user experience.


To bring this back on topic, unlike the Facebook, MySpace dichotomy posed by Danah Boyd, Tumblr truly can belong to anyone[http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/30/30-must-see-tumblr-blogs/slide/all/][https://www.tumblr.com/]. One does not need friends already on the site to begin participating, one just follows people one is interested in following. Despite my earlier comment about high school students in Japan, if someone reblogs someone and responds thoughtfully to a post, the response usually is an inclusion into the conversation and a follow.
:This is a challenge for sure, as the discussion at the end of this class noted. There are a variety of means that Wikipedia and its community use to correct errors. To your point about when to use Wikipedia as a reference, I'd point to [[User: Jradoff|Jradoff's]] comments in the [[A_Series_of_Tubes:_Infrastructure,_Broadband,_and_Baseline_Content_Control|week three discussion page]]. There was also a pretty good law review article in the Yale Journal of Law and Technology a few years back exploring in some depth [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1272437 the use of Wikipedia in judicial opinions], which also offered some best practice guidelines. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:21, 9 February 2014 (EST)


Truly no one knows your age, race and class if you choose not to provide that information. One can participate wholly with links to photographs and music - and many do[http://fredwilson.vc/].Finally, unlike the faux creativity touted by MySpace and its fans, Tumblr users are the real deal, people of all ages who post original writing, drawing, photography and music for the world rather than limiting themselves to changing the template upon which their user page is viewed (although this too is possible on Tumblr[http://www.tumblr.com/themes/]).


Lawrence Lessig's Tumblr is here: http://lessig.tumblr.com/
:: Thanks Andy! That's an extremely interesting paper.


[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)
:  Not very interesting but amusing paper.  Why didn't these courts use the citations in Wikipedia instead?  [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 04:05, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Latest revision as of 05:05, 15 February 2014

Syllabus


February 4

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

This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments. The second hour of the class will focus on applying these concepts to Wikipedia, and teeing up 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.

Download slides from this week's class


Readings

Mechanisms of control
The effects of control

Optional Readings


Assignment 1

Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 11th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see this page for further information. You can submit the assignment here.

Videos Watched in Class

Links

Herdict http://www.herdict.org

Info on DMCA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org

Chilling Effects background info on DMCA and copyright law: http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/

IRB is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board

Google flu trends: http://www.google.org/flutrends/us/#US

Facebook as disease? http://io9.com/researchers-predict-facebook-will-die-out-like-a-disea-1506843703

Facebook's to the Princeton article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10594490/Facebook-parodies-Princetons-bubonic-plague-study.html

Berkman's privacy tools project: http://privacytools.seas.harvard.edu/

Facebook get out the vote effort: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506496/how-facebooks-plans-could-affect-the-election/

"Walled Garden": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform

Amazon Kindle 1984 story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html

reddit: http://www.reddit.com

Today I Learned (TIL) subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/

Tor: https://www.torproject.org

A wikipedia article explaining the rules for translating english articles into other languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translate_us

Wikimedia Foundation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

Class Discussion

Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Andy 11:49, 8 November 2013 (EST)



Therefore, to maintain order, ensure efficient government, and improve social justice, kings, presidents, and prime ministers must be the chief architect of their country's internet code. They must be multi-skilled or have the support of a talented and scholarly team.

Ichua 13:39, 31 January 2014 (EST)



It seems lots more fun to watch than just read: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7UlYTFKFqY

Ichua 03:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)

Zittrain's talks are always a lot of fun! But we chose the two chapters in order to focus on a few of the specific things we'd like to dive into for this class. His book talk is much more general. Andy 08:46, 2 February 2014 (EST)



The Zittrain chapters give a good overview of how the Internet had been developed up to circa 2008, but there have been some significant changes--and possible reversals of the "generative" model since that time. The increasing role of SaaS platforms, centralized APIs, and operating platforms with a much more pervasive level of control relative to older operating systems (e.g., IOS, Android, and social networking platforms like the Facebook developer platform) have reintroduced an aspect of large, single-point-of-failure, commercially controlled systems. Whereas Cluetrain envisioned a future of "small pieces loosely joined," the Internet of today might be better described as "lots of small pieces largely dependent on a few large, commercially-controlled pieces." These few large pieces raise concerns in terms of limiting the potential for innovation, negotiation with gatekeepers (which, as rightly discussed in the Zittrain chapters, was one of the things that killed innovation on earlier mobile platforms) and the shifting of business opportunities across the market from creators to platform owners. Will there be another wave of generative platforms that will wear down the the current trend to centralization, and if not, how can we best ensure continuous innovation on the Internet? Jradoff 20:27, 3 February 2014 (EST)


At an event last night Prof. Zittrain mentioned another possible enclosure movement for generativity I hadn't thought of before: many web services are finding themselves at the receiving end of DDoS Attacks for one reason or another. As a result, services are moving from their own servers capable of withstanding such attacks - primarily Amazon Web Services, but there are a few others as well. If all of the Internet moves to just one of three or four web servers, that gives those servers tremendous power to cut off something they may not like. That's a form of "contingent generativity" that could cut off a lot of the social good that both Zittrain and Benkler flag in their articles. Andy 09:28, 4 February 2014 (EST)



Coming off of last week's reading (specifically John Perry Barlow's "A Declaration of Independence of the Internet"), I found danah boyd's essay "White Flight in Networked Publics?" particularly interesting. Even before reading boyd's piece, Barlow's "Declaration" seems hilariously naive in 2014, though I can certainly appreciate the utopian vision it's based on. The idea that the world that we exist in (the physical reality described by Orin Kerr) won't intrude on the virtual world of the Internet seems impossible. (Did they really not believe that the best AND worst parts of us would be present?) The role of the Internet in our everyday social lives has, of course, increased exponentially since 1996, so it only makes sense that who we are and how we behave in the physical world will translate to equivalent behavior on the Internet. The ways in which behavior on the Internet effects people in the physical reality of their lives (particularly when it comes to harassment, threatening behavior, etc.) lends a great sense of urgency to figuring out how we should think about the Internet and the law. Jkelly 23:18, 3 February 2014 (EST)

Both boyd and Hargittai use a lot of pre-Internet scholarship in their writings for this course - a nice reminder that new technology does not necessarily mean new approaches to scholarship. But as Benkler notes, it is not that we are simply repeating the 20th century with shinier objects. There is something different about the way that information travels today that changes the ecology of information and cultural production. We can either adopt that change or legislate/architect it away. Andy 10:36, 4 February 2014 (EST)



I agree with Ichu's remarks about the need to somehow maintain order and to do so utilizing a talented and scholarly task force. My question would then be how this team would be selected/elected? Another potential issue would be how to ensure justice in a system where internet code is controlled by one's government or sole government official/king/president? In our reading by Orin Kerr, he highlights how these conflicting external and internal perspectives on the internet add fuel to the problem of internet law. The internet has two personalities in its vast internal cyberspace and also in acting as a physical network; striking a balance between the two and incorporating both identities into a legal system continues to evade and frustrate authorities.

In response to Megan Garber's reading on Wikipedia, I find that Wikipedia often does not get the credit or praise it deserves. Admittedly, no online community-built encyclopedia can be fool-proof, but the reason why Wikipedia has prevailed is its relative reliability. I have used the site extensively and it has provided me with a quick summary of events on a particular debate or issue. Garber's reasons for Wikipedia's success are logical in that familiarity is the cornerstone for many website's success rates. The ease of navigating the site and the non-committal method of editing or adding to the work encourages more users to contribute. I would also argue that, beyond the cultural/socio-economic/racial influences that cause users to migrate from site to site (such as from myspace to facebook), the constantly changing platform of facebook has led many to stray from the site. This is difficult to prove, of course, but when I had a Facebook account I recall many complaints from my peers about all of the changes that kept happening occurring on the site. It seemed that every week we had to ajust to a new feature or re-learn how to navigate. Accordingly with Garber's theory, the "familiarity" factor was diminishing for users and people tend to resist change especially on a site that they have grown accustomed to.

--AmyAnn0644 04:08, 4 February 2014 (EST)



I was also interested in Megan Garber's point that the authorless structure of Wikipedia lowers the pressure of contributing. It certainly makes sense to me (and, I'm sure, to anyone who has read the comment section of any news article or blog post ever written...) that anonymity can encourage participation. When there's lower pressure to perform and you aren't faced with high stakes when you get involved, it's easier to bring yourself to contribute. This seems to tie in to Zittrain's point about the success of Wikipedia: it developed somewhat un-self-consciously and organically, rather than as a top-down "knowledge project" initiated by large universities. Oversight of the development of new technologies would presumably put a damper on this type of growth at any and all levels. I think this is nicely addressed by Zittrain's point that we're not looking at choosing between technology and non-technology, but a hierarchy and polyarchy.

Jkelly 12:48, 4 February 2014 (EST)



Lawrence Lessig’s article focuses on liberty in Cyberspace and how various modes of regulation effect that liberty. He focuses on four different ways that the web can be regulated,1)the Law, 2)social norms, 3) the market, and 4)architecture. Lessing tries to get us to think differently, more critically, about different mechanisms that can lead to restriction of freedom on the Web.

For instance, with the architecture of the Web, Lessing asserts that the written code of programs inherently can either provide more freedom, or restrict freedom, and access. And when it comes to the law, Lessing points out that “The efficient answer may well be unjust.” He gives an example of the law requiring life sentences for stealing car radios.

We all would probably agree that that is overboard and excessive. And, with that absurdity planted in our minds, Lessing then shows how a coder could easily put a restriction in the radios code that would make stealing the radio less desirable for thieves. Which would in turn make it unnecessary for such a draconian law of life sentences for car radio thieves. This example makes me think about Aaron Swartz, a friend of Lessigs, whom took his own life in 2013. Aaron was prodigy kid who helped create RSS feed, and Reddit at a young age. He later became what you might call an internet activist, and made enemies in the federal government for some hacking activities. He was eventually charged with multiple felonies by the Federal government for hacking MIT’s JSTOR server. Lessing talks about how law and code can either liberate or restrict the Internet. I believe Swartz’s case shows how the MIT/JSTOR rules of access, restricted information on the Web, and how federal laws were excessive and restricted innovation and liberty for Web users. And lastly, Swartz’s case shows how one coder tried to use hacktivism, to liberate information on the web.Mikewitwicki 12:58, 4 February 2014 (EST)



I found the essay I found danah boyd's essay "White Flight in Networked Publics?" both interesting and reflective of what I have witnessed. In particular, I thought the comment that “Subculturally identified teens appeared more frequently draw to MySapce while more mainstream teens tended towards Facebook,” was especially true. We may pride ourselves on a strong sense of individualism, but remnants of the herd mentality are always present. MySpace simply offers a way to share interests that are different and more “specialized” than Facebook. I could not help but wonder if the trend is continuing with an exodus from Facebook. From a personal observation, I’ve noticed that usage among many 16-22 year olds on Facebook is dropping. The pages may still be up with random notices but the real communication and new communities are being centered on Twitter. I’m not sure if this is a spike, a trend or a progression to escape a Mainstream Facebook with parental oversight. What may be of more concern is that Twitter allows the segregation of subcultures and races more easily than previous options. VACYBER 14:09, 4 February 2014 (EST)



I have been following the most recent work of Lawrence Lessig for about a year, so it’s exciting to read “Code 2.0” and make connections between that and his work on copyright law, amateur creativity, Creative Commons, etc. By providing some background on the US government’s inclination towards “indirect” regulation, Lessig paints a frightening picture of the extent to which the state can control entities for its own benefit. The case of New York v. US focuses on the question of indirection and the states, which disallows the federal government from co-opting the states for its own ends. In effect, this case establishes that the government must take responsibility for its actions and remain transparent in its interactions with the states. My question is, however, why isn’t there such precedent for indirection and the American people? Rust v. Sullivan is a prime example of the government’s indirect regulation of its citizens. By ordering doctors, who work in government-funded clinics, to discourage the use of abortion as a family planning method, the Reagan administration furthered its aim to reduce the incidence of abortion. The lack of transparency of the government, in using doctors to discourage their patients from obtaining abortions, is most disturbing. A patient has no way to discern the state’s motives, which masquerade behind the advice of a medical professional. A somewhat similar issue occurred (and continues to occur) in the deeding of land prior to 1948. Such deeds prevented the property covered by that deed from being sold to people of a particular race. While this law is no more, its remnants are still very much alive in the US today. As Lessig explained, communities remained segregated by “a thousand tiny inconveniences of architecture and zoning… highways without easy crossings were placed between communities… railroad tracks were used to divide.” Despite the fact that integration is made difficult by these subtle methods of control, the most troubling part of this it is so very challenging to see the link between the regulation and its consequence. The government’s lack of transparency, while being a rather genius way to accomplish their own goals, is what is so threatening to our liberty. Lessig ends by suggesting that cyberspace is a new terrain in which the government can wield power inconspicuously and endanger our freedom.

Lrsanchez 14:50, 4 February 2014 (EST)



IMPROVING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ACCELERATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Traditionally, colleges and universities limit the number of students admitted into their institutions primarily due to resource constraints. But with the internet, everyone can have access to higher education, regardless of their prior academic failures.

And higher education can even be made almost free! This brings liberty and freedom to the weak and poor. Economic progress can be accelerated. Is this possible? Is this desirable?


WHY THE GOVERNMENT MUST OWN THE COUNTRY'S INTERNET BACKBONE

In the Philippines, the internet backbone is mainly owned and operated by profit-oriented private corporations. Hence, the poor has no access to the internet. With over 40% of the population, or 40 million Filipinos in poverty, and internet infrastructure in most schools are grossly inadequate or absent, only the government can remedy the situation by owning a substantial part of the country's internet backbone. Profit opportunities can still exist for corporations if there are two separate internet backbone: one solely for government administration and education, and the other for private entertainment and commerce.

Ichua 15:32, 4 February 2014 (EST)



Wikipedia is offered in other languages, which is a feature offered almost from inception. How does wikipedia get around the challenge when (i.e.) an English and a German wikipedia page on the same subject feature different citations, or when one page has more depth than the other? This would make a great deal of knowledge inaccessible to people who don't speak the language. Does monolingualism emerge as a barrier for Wikipedia?

Marissa1989 15:43, 4 February 2014 (EST)



I could not agree more with Ichua. Your point of colleges and universities being somewhat limited due to resource constraints makes me think of tech and educational revolutionaries such as Salman Khan and his YouTube channel. Although his efforts are not mainstream yet, it is a good example of how the internet could bring about freedom, social justice, economic improvement, and access to higher education to the weak and poor. The same goes with "edX" and other disruptive technologies that could very well contribute to knowledge economies now and in the future.

cheikhmbacke 15:42, 4 February 2014 (EST)



An introduction into a "Dots" life brings scrutiny on the constructs of regulation through the market, architecture, law and social norms. As we engage in our conversations dealing with cyberspace, it will be interesting to see which one of the four areas outlined will prove to be the most critical-or will they all hold equal weight in the outcome of how we grow as a society online?

Melissaluke 15:51, 4 February 2014 (EST)



The multifaceted and ambiguous nature of the Internet along with its sheer size has presented a challenge for analysts, researchers, and governments alike to collect, study, organize, present and control data in a useful way. As Benkler, Zittrain, and Palfrey show you must understand how the infrastructure works, which they categorized into 3 main levels, otherwise it would not be possible to access what they need to monitor and regulate their own sphere of Internet.

As Jonathan Zittrain expounds upon “the generative pattern” we see that even though having a sterile system like the iPhone or an enclosed “garden” like AOL has is benefits including in the security realm, not allowing an open platform stifles peoples creativity. Indeed Wikipedia would not work if generativity was not allowed.


Even in the world of the Internet racism and ethnical divides took part in shaping how society socializes online. Students’ opinions of different socializing networks were full of stereotypical references insinuating that just as in the classroom, subcultures have existed and do exist today correlating how people relate to one another over the Internet.


Emmanuelsurillo 15:59, 4 February 2014 (EST)



I greatly appreciated Lawrence Lessig's invocation of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" in "What Things Regulate" because Mill's treatise on libertarian ideals speak to controversies over internet regulation, especially the concerns over free speech that we discussed last week and will undoubtedly continue discuss over the course of the semester. I believe that Mill's "harm principle," as illustrated in "On Liberty" speaks directly to these issues of censorship. I'm not a philosophy major, but as I interpret Mill's writing, individuals should only be limited in their expression if such expression poses direct harm to individuals. (This concept was hilariously depicted in an episode of "The Simpsons" entitled "Lisa on Ice.") According to Mill, I should be allowed to swing my fists up until the point that they make physical contact with your face.

Of course, the internet does not allow for physical contact, but Mill explicates that certain expressions do not require contact to cause harm. He gives the example of protestors who oppose price increases for corn; to castigate the corn dealer in print would not constitute harm, but to picket at his doorstep would. I believe that free speech on the internet is important, but undoubtedly, acts such as cyber bullying do seem to cause harm based on the groundwork that Mill provided Vance.puchalski 16:01, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Conceptually the internet and the regulatory framework that Lawrence Lessig presents must be viewed from an international context. What is normative behavior in one country is not in another and can feed the digital inequality/divide further. What is architecturally most beneficial does not always treat all economies the same. Same is true for laws and market analysis - the internet as an international dialog. This international lense must be used to reconcile these 'regulatory' concepts. The political debate between nations on acceptable behavior in physical space is certainly real in this space as well - what constitutes causing harm to a nation's infrastructure if that infrastructure and data exists largely in a cloud in another nation? rgs 16:50, 4 February 2014 (EST)



Based on some of the points made here and in the readings, I have to admit that I think reform of all copyright is a necessity if the internet is ever going to have a chance to truly be free. I hope that the internet is eventually operated like the fashion industry. No copyright for the designs, only company brands can control whats inside their own brand. Everything else is free to all so it never inhibits the innovation. So many types of business would benefit from this structure including Music, Film, and even Video Games. I feel that some sort of UN agreement for the care of the main servers etc.. to keep the internet going and maintained should be the responsibility of all countries who participate in it. Without the freedoms that the internet used to allow, already becoming suffocating, it has and will continue to stifle it's very being like all other creative entities.TriciaBy 17:25, 4 February 2014 (EST)



Zittrain's point about "contingent generativity" is quite correct, but I would argue that the situation is not as bleak as he suggests, at least in this question. The industry as a whole, with the introduction of every new service or technology, is almost always moving from being more restrictive to being morel liberal. Certainly, more restrictive platforms often remain such (and all power to them given that their users value the convenience they provide over more generative freedom), but alternatives generally quickly follow suit in the free market. We now have a gradient of restrictiveness in most sectors, as exemplified by mobile operating systems with iOS being on the more restrictive end of the spectrum, Android on the other side, and Windows Phone somewhere in between, and I cannot think of a major consumer software or online service where a wide array of alternatives does not exist to suit everyone's needs. Do platforms following the "contingent generativity" model tend to be more popular? Perhaps, but only for as long as they are not handicapped by that contingency. As we've seen with the raise of Android or the raise and downfall of Firefox, when the small pockets of generative freedom lead to significant advances in technology or experience, many are quick to migrate to those products. The fact that the more restrictive platforms often catch up and recapture those users is, in my view, more indicative of the limits of generativity than anything else. --Seifip 16:22, 5 February 2014 (EST)


THERE ARE GREATER SOCIAL ILLS WITH ONLINE GAMING OTHER THAN TOXIC BEHAVIOR

Addiction to online gaming is consuming valuable time. I personally know of a Malaysian scholar who was so addicted to online gaming that he failed his 3rd year at university twice and had to leave with a big financial debt to the Singapore government. Another two reports mentioned two separate online gamers who died, one after 1.5 days of non-stop gaming. Are there any studies done showing how many hours per day an online gamer spends on playing online games? And what amount of time spent would constitute an addiction to online games?

Ichua 15:23, 8 February 2014 (EST)



HOW CAN WE ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION POSTED IN WIKIPEDIA?

Very misleading, biased and incorrect information have been posted on Wikipedia. Because of this it is unacceptable to quote or reference Wikipedia in professional peer-reviewed literature and graduate or undergraduate thesis reports. However, this pose a major problem especially for our young people who use Wikipedia as a major source of information for their research on the internet.

Ichua 15:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)


This is a challenge for sure, as the discussion at the end of this class noted. There are a variety of means that Wikipedia and its community use to correct errors. To your point about when to use Wikipedia as a reference, I'd point to Jradoff's comments in the week three discussion page. There was also a pretty good law review article in the Yale Journal of Law and Technology a few years back exploring in some depth the use of Wikipedia in judicial opinions, which also offered some best practice guidelines. Andy 14:21, 9 February 2014 (EST)


Thanks Andy! That's an extremely interesting paper.
Not very interesting but amusing paper. Why didn't these courts use the citations in Wikipedia instead? Ichua 04:05, 15 February 2014 (EST)
Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2014/?title=Paradigms_for_Studying_the_Internet&oldid=875"