Paradigms for Studying the Internet: Difference between revisions
(→Links: Added links) |
Chanel Rion (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
Chanel Rion | Chanel Rion | ||
[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 14:55, 6 February 2015
February 3
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.
Download slides from this week's class
Readings
- Mechanisms of control
- Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 7 (read intro, "A Dot's Life," and "On Governments and Ways to Regulate")
- Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics (read 1-3 and 9-22)
- The effects of control
- 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)
- Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (pp. 379-396 only; stop at "The Physical Layer")
Optional Readings
- 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.)
- 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)
- Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law (Focus on sections I and II)
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
Article about submarine cable cuts: http://research.dyn.com/2014/03/beware-the-ides-of-march/
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): https://www.eff.org
Buy an LP of Barlow reading his declaration of cyberspace: http://boingboing.net/2014/12/08/limited-edition-vinyl-john-pe.html
IP Geolocation Example: http://www.iplocation.net
Tor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)
Apple 1984 commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axSnW-ygU5g
Ello social network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ello_(social_network)
Boston's office of new urban mechanics: http://www.cityofboston.gov/newurbanmechanics/
On the FCC changing definition of "broadband" in the US: http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps
Denial of Service Attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack
Herdict: http://herdict.org
Chilling Effects: https://www.chillingeffects.org
SOPA/PIPA protests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA
Born This Way Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_This_Way_Foundation
danah's It's Complicated: http://www.danah.org/itscomplicated/
A recent issue where apple approved, then un-approved, then re-approved an app for OS X: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/30/apple-reverses-course-on-calculator-widgets/
Sports Illustrated just laid off their entire photojournalism staff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/sports-illustrated-photographers-lay-offs-magazine_n_6533142.html
Bruce Schneier's blog: https://www.schneier.com
Using Twitter to predict flu trends: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/520116/twitter-datastream-used-to-predict-flu-outbreaks/
Using technology platforms is not always perfect: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/27/google-flu-trends-predicting-flu
Class Discussion
The Internet is the next frontier - not space. Grappling with the issues of how best to improve the logical layer of the Internet (with generativity or without), how to protect the harassed while protecting free speech, and how to protect copyrighted content are the big questions of our era. Many solutions are proffered in the readings in this section, some more reasonable than others, but we will only know how these will play out once they are put into practice. That’s why it’s a frontier, because we don’t know what’s out there or what will happen as a result of our actions until we do it.
Scammers didn’t appear out of nowhere with the popularization of the internet, nor did bullies or content thieves, but the Internet has acted as an enabling force for these kinds of people. Yet, almost every attempt to head off these “wrongdoers” (depending on whom you ask) is met with a catch 22. On the Internet everyone is equal, everyone is an IP address. Thus, those that gain greater skill in the use of the Internet can cause great harm to people in the real world whom they would never have a chance against in real life. It’s created a whole new playing field where the bullied are turning into the bullies, and the bullies are able to be better bullies.
Obviously, the Internet offers many positives as well, but we aren’t worried about those. Those are just there and we like them, but what we really need to deal with are the bad things. This opens us up to a whole new world of morality where relativism holds a lot of sway. We’re in an era where Redbox is going out of business because people either watch movies online or download them illegally. Some might say this is “bad” while others might view it from more of a Robinhoodesque perspective - take from the corporations and allow the little guys to benefit. We’re finding people staying out of trouble by using the “how” of things, for example, peer to peer sharing, which makes the waters even murkier.
Many governments have found ways of controlling internet access and use in their countries. Will the whole world move more in this direction, or will we find ourselves more and more in a cyberpirate world were anything goes and anything can be done? This seems to depend on who develops what first and how well they do it. Oliviabrinich (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2015 (EST)
Quite often, the Internet´s impact on society and on individuals is discussed in the media. However, the subjects discussed do almost solely concern the social effects or the long-term effects on sitting in front of a screen too much. What we should start focusing on is instead (or also) who and what it is that decide what we see and do on the Internet, because that can affect both our individual privacy and our view on the world.
One thing that is very interesting is that there is not one person or one government that rule over the Internet. The Internet is shaped by its users, people that build the softwares and other infrastructure, private corporations, and of course by governments. Internet security/Internet terrorism and online harassment are two issues that concerns all of these groups in one way or another. What is also interesting is that even though we all are part of shaping the Internet, we do have different interests in doing so. Individuals use the internet for their own purpose, for example for amusement and to gather information. Those who build the infrastructure might do so because they want to improve the Internet or because out of curiosity. Private corporations want to do business, while governments are interested in protecting individuals and the country from threats.
Even though the Internet is the source of a lot of good, there are like I mentioned also a lot of bad consequences to deal with. Issues like what to do about online harassment and online privacy problems are two of multiple hard nuts to crack. Laws are often important but not always the best and only solutions. Kayyali and O’Brien advocate in Facing the challenge of online harassment a more representative pool of toolmakers, to empower the users and to embrace counter-speak, etc., as part of a solution to the problems of harassment. I believe that it will take some time before we see a solution since there are so many players in this game called the Internet. The market, laws, norms and the Internet´s architecture all regulate the Internet in one way or another, even if they don´t mean to, and that is both a strength and a weakness. JosefinS (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (EST)
From today's class reading I was mostly impressed by the Online Harassment article, by Mave Duggan and more precisely by the survey on how people response to online harassment . Only 5 % among those who have experienced online harassment reported the problem to law enforcement, it says. It means Internet users do not seek help from the offline authorities for violation of of their rights committed online. Considering this, I asked myself the question, is it so because the online community has already elaborated it's own methods of enforcement and response to online violence or is it just because people believe traditional, meaning offline measures, would not be sufficiently applicable and efficient regarding Internet cases? Another question I asked myself is whether people react the same way to one and the same aggression online and offline. For example our job performance being criticized in Facebook (Online Harassment, Part 4:The Aftermath of Online Harassment), would it hurt more or less than being criticized in a face to face conversation? (Gia (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (EST))
I too was very drawn to the articles about online harassment. As student affairs professional that has worked in higher education institutions for over 10 years, it has been very profound how the perception of internet bullying and the governance of such behavior has changed radically. Approximately a decade ago, there was a large amount of discussion about institution jurisdiction and the ability to adjudicate students and hold them accountable for actions occurring via the internet; but little was being done. As social media and technology became the forefront of communication for millennial students, institutions and practitioners had to reevaluate institution policies. As specific examples, I have served on committees that redefined internet harassment and code of conduct policies that no longer allowed for ‘remote’ behaviors to go unpunished. In a number of colleges and universities, harassment that takes places through a university’s technology network is subject to disciplinary and potential criminal action. Some institutions have gone so far as to create a code of conduct that governs student behavior and bullying/harassment off-campus, which is subject to institution discipline and potentially criminal action. In my previous institution, we saw approximately a 30% increase in judicial cases that included internet harassment from the preceding year. What is interesting is the increase of reporting in a university setting while reporting incidents to law enforcement by the general public may not occur frequently. I would assume, with increased legislation about universities’ reporting criminal behaviors, there has been additional scrutiny about institutions demonstrating proactive comportments in protecting our students holistically. TashaTasha (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2015 (EST)
I have to chime in on the Online Harassment article as well. Don’t know if I missed it, but I think they overlooked a huge demographic of young people who are harassed online. There is a population of middle school students who are severely harassed and bullied, such that many states are enacting anti-bullying legislation (which borders on infringement of free speech in some cases). These are victims who honestly don’t know how to handle the harassment and could face major depression and in some cases suicide. chelly byrne (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2015 (EST)
One of the readings that caught my attention for today’s class is the concept of generativity from Zittrain’s book The Future of the Internet. Zittrain defines generativity as “a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences” and he uses this term to describe open source software systems as well as closed-source systems. My initial thought from this definition was that it perfectly encapsulates what the modern Internet has allowed people to create. We were once closed into what Zittrain refers to as a “walled garden” which by its very nature limits our creativity, but we were able to break out of that shell via PCs and the internet. But I do agree with one of Zittrain’s main points being that this “walled garden” invites a problem that if we do not take seriously it could derail further progress in our internet age.
Jan.Yburan (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (EST)
I agree with Olivia's point in regards to piracy. I personally see piracy as a major threat to the "generativity" that Mr. Zittrain mentioned in his book titled, "The Future of the Internet." Online piracy encourages the governments to implement, and to enforce new laws that may make it harder for entrepreneurs to create and to innovate (Thus leading to stagnation - the nemesis of generativity.)
The article titled, "Code 2.0" by Lawrence Lessig taught me a lot in regards to the constraints that we, as individuals, face online. I never considered social norms, or the architecture of the internet, as powerful factors that could regulate our every movements. The
Mishal R. Kennedy (talk) 4:40PM, 3 February 2015 (EST)
== The Internet's Chilling Effect: The Sound of Anonymity and the Silence of Vanity ==
Duggan reveals to us the numbing numbers of online harassment and reveals in numbers what many of us may have already suspected about society and its Internet and what the two entities are doing to each other:
Words are cheap, feelings cheaper, and attacks are virtual (at least half the population, according to Duggan, found their most recent experience with online harassment as being "not too upsetting").
Duggan's article on Internet harassment brought to mind two thoughts from the realm of crowd psychology that might be useful in considering the Internet's behavioral effects on us.
Crowd mentality parallel 1: The more people in a situation, the simpler their collective mental capacity.
Gustave Le Bon wrote a book entitled "The Crowd" -- in it he claims that the mental capacity of a crowd boils down to "Yes's and No's"; the larger the crowd the more so and the more the crowd simplifies the choices, the more fervent they become.
There's a potent amount of activity on platforms where people, no longer using their personal identities spur off on commentary and discussions that quickly turn nasty. The ability to disconnect peoples' identities from reality and install their avatars in the virtual world of the Internet creates a surprising cacophony that only the anonymity of the crowd and of the Internet can inspire which segues us into…
Crowd mentality parallel 2: The more anonymous, the less responsibility, the more the attack.
With Internet Crowd Mentality, the Internet becomes an even more powerful assembler, rally-mongerer than any physical, on the ground crowd mongerer could ever be. It's effects are similar to Le Bon's thesis about the simplification of crowd mentality.
The Internet is at once a paradise of (perceived) anonymity and a kingdom of exposure. In physical life, crowds have this terrifying ability to de-individuate -- to strip the individual of their identity and meld them with a larger identity -- the Crowd's. With the loss or in the Internet's case, the discarding of identity also comes the loss of personal responsibility, thus explaining the awful phenomena of normal individuals doing horrific things when in a mob. The exact phenomena can be seen with the Internet only with individuals sitting all alone in front of their computers-- that very same feeling of not being personally accountable that is found when surrounded by hundreds of people is brilliantly emulated through the portal of the Internet.
Duggar well exhibits this with her Pew numbers.
On a topic opposite crowd mentality, we turn to ultimate individualization; the power of vanity and how the Internet and its many actors are utilizing this to control the landscape before it.
In discussing the construction of the architectures of control, Lessig used a funny example of how a hotel was able to control their customers' complaints about the elevator:
"A large hotel in an American city received many complaints about the slowness of its elevators. It installed mirrors next to the elevator doors. The complaints ended."
The plausibility of this story makes it even funnier.
In parallel, to discussions of the Internet and its means of control via its controllers, we learn from this elevator-mirror example something about human nature that will always work in conjunction with the Internet. Vanity is one of the most powerful manipulators and the most potently disguised usurpers of our liberties… Prime example, Facebook, where we witness the tradeoff of using a media platform to connect and to show off in exchange for the selling of our private information to megacompanies.
Vanity is a great silencer. Social media platforms cater to this concept brilliantly. Through the Internet, they are the proverbial Mirrors before the Elevators. So long as we are admiring ourselves on our social media platforms, we will be distracted from the inherent malfunctionings and pitfalls of a devious system.
Chanel Rion Chanel Rion (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (EST)