Paradigms for Studying the Internet

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)

• Maeve Duggan, Online Harassment: Summary of Findings (from the PewResearch Internet Project)

The effects of control

• Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from Ars Technica)

• 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")

• Ethan Zuckerman, The Internet's Original Sin

• Nadiya Kayyali and Danny O'Brien, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Facing the Challenge of Online Harassment

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)

• Megan Garber, The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?, Nieman Journalism Lab

• Adi Robertson, Wikipedia Denies 'Purging' Feminist Editors over Gamergate Debate

• 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.

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

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 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2015 (EST)

---

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)

---

It is very interesting to look back and see the way how the internet evolves, what is framing it, regulating it, and making it be the way it is, such as norms, law, architecture, and market. There are problems such as ads, harassment and other things associated with this lack of regulation or evolution if you will. The architecture can regulate it so much to as to the purpose of what the program was created for, the market but wanting it, the law by framing its ways, and norms by doing something similar to the law by the way of majorities.

I think that with respect to the problems for lack of regulation like harassment, and annoyance pretty much, there is a thin line between some one's free right to express, and someone invading the rights of others to enjoy this product, but it is so difficult to establish laws that can regulate this matter in this situation, because the internet is intangible.

I was doing some research and it appears that in order to monitor this behavior of harassing there should be surveillance in every where, and that it is just very difficult. Therefore, that could be one big problem of regulation.

There are also other parts of the reading that basically state that regulation and freedom overlap, but the results of harassment can make one think that twice in how this problem can be solved.

Edwin Duque (15:37, 19 February 2015 (EST)Edwinduque (talk))

---

I took a course in January called Leadership Lessons from Modern Presidential Politics – which I highly recommend to everyone here if you’ve got the time – and we learned a few things about the internet as well. First I’d go into some detail about the concepts we learned. One of the most striking concepts was “The Starfish and the Spider”. (Ref 2)This was taught to us in the perspective of business models and political campaign models, yet it could really apply to a wider range of things. The concept is simple, the spider structure has managers on top of managers, or shall we say a more inflexible management with power maintained at the top of the hierarchy. The starfish model attempts to break this apart; it not only take away a number of layers from the spider structure, but it also shifts the power down to the bottom. For example, an employee of the lowest rank could make certain decisions if it benefits his part of work. This gives more power and responsibility to the employees, which also gives them more meaning to stay with the firm.

We could also summarize the starfish model as a “scalable” model. Scalable means software which could be copy and pasted almost indefinitely and distributed world wide. Unscalable things would be dentistry which requires time per patient, and you could only help a number of patients per day. This becomes interesting because in the internet world, starfish models means that information comes from multiple sources, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia. Spider models would be like traditional news agencies, or websites like cnn, Financial times, Bloomberg. These websites get their information from one source only. The starfish model also states that things grow a lot faster, but the quality may diminish. Which is also in line with what we learned in assignment 1. Wikipedia had to create strict “rules” in order to maintain its legitimacy. It could have failed just as easily as it could have succeeded.

After learning about scalability and the starfish model, I was very fascinated when I read about the other failed encyclopedias before Wikipedia came into existence. (Ref 1) The part about Wikipedia keeping the old norms of how an encyclopedia made a lot of sense. People like change, but not that much change. Something entirely different could in fact be too unusual to the human eye. I once heard that if you’re one step ahead of the curve, you’re smart; two steps, you’re a genius; three steps, you’re an idiot. I guess people can’t comprehend something that is so far away. The next point about Wikipedia not focusing on technological development does have some truths to it. It does not exclude the technologically challenged individuals. They could just as easily become an editor compared with other more technologically gifted individuals. Basically it is agreeing with the starfish model, of pushing power down to the lowest level. If the least technologically literate user could edit a Wikipedia page, it means everyone is capable of doing so! This point is also explained as Wikipedia offering low transaction costs to participation. This is exactly the point about making it easy for the average user.

In my opinion, the availability of the starfish model being incorporated into technology meant that things could grow exponentially or fail miserably. The application “Draw Something” grew exponentially because it was scalable. If something physical gained this attraction, it would not grow that fast. Though I would also add my reasoning for the success of Wikipedia too. I believe the rules and regulations put forth by Wikipedia at the start created an aligned sense of belief on the direction of the community. It subsequently made the users become self –reinforcing the ideals of the website. From my learnings last semester on political leadership, one reason why Obama won the campaign was the use of the Starfish model; giving the power to the average folks. They could create subcategories such as MyObama-Skateboarders. This sense of connection was their greatest success. I believe Wikipedia has achieved their current success with a similar manner.

References:

Ref 1: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/

Ref 2: http://media.portland.indymedia.org/media/2008/10/380532.pdf

Caelum (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2015 (EST)